Equal Employment Opportunity
SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures Gao ID: GAO-03-604 July 16, 2003Employees at the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Region X--which covers Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--expressed concern about the Region's equal employment opportunity (EEO) process for employment discrimination complaints. GAO was asked to (1) provide information for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the composition of the Region X workforce and for personnel actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions by EEO group; (2) describe the EEO complaint process in Region X and any changes to it; (3) assess whether the Region's process is consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4) assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region's employees and their attitude toward it.
In a geographic area where minorities represent a small portion of the civilian workforce (about 13.5 percent), Region X generally had a higher percentage of each minority group, except for American Indian and Alaska Natives. Moreover, the percentage of minority employees in Region X had increased from about 19 percent in fiscal year 1997 to about 27 percent in fiscal year 2001. Women represented a much higher proportion of SSA's workforce than of the civilian workforce. Differences among racial/ethnic and gender groups for most of the personnel actions reviewed were not statistically significant. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO counselors described a process that mirrored the informal stage of the required federal sector complaint process. In fiscal year 1999, Region X changed its EEO process, so that EEO counselors were no longer allowed to talk with managers but were required to submit their questions in writing. In addition, managers were encouraged to routinely have an attorney from the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) review their written responses before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. After the changes were in place for about a year, SSA headquarters officials held discussions with Region X officials to explain that having written inquiries and OGC involved in the informal EEO process was not consistent with the intent of resolving issues informally. Beginning early in fiscal year 2001, neither written EEO counselor queries to managers nor OGC involvement was required in the informal process. Region X's former use of written queries and OGC involvement were counter to the spirit of EEO regulations and their related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling. In doing its work at Region X, GAO found that SSA had issued EEO handbooks for managers and employees, but the handbooks do not contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process complaints of discrimination. Agency-specific procedures are required by EEO regulations. Absent such procedures, components of an agency can use different procedures, as illustrated by Region X, resulting in employees across the country being treated differently. To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region's employees are with the EEO process and their willingness to participate in it, GAO surveyed all of the Region's employees. Most Region X employees reported having received or seen within the last 2 years written materials about EEO regulations and how to contact regional EEO counselors. Also, almost half the employees reported a willingness to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if they believed they had been discriminated against. However, a sizeable portion of employees--about 40 percent--reported being unwilling or uncertain about becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO complaints.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-604, Equal Employment Opportunity: SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-604
entitled 'Equal Employment Opportunity: SSA Region X's Changes to Its
EEO Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures' which was
released on July 16, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
July 2003:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY:
SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO Process Illustrate Need for
Agencywide Procedures:
GAO-03-604:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-604, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Employees at the Social Security Administration‘s (SSA) Region X”which
covers Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington”expressed concern about
the Region‘s equal employment opportunity (EEO) process for employment
discrimination complaints. GAO was asked to (1) provide information
for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the composition of the Region X
workforce and for personnel actions such as promotions, awards, and
adverse actions by EEO group; (2) describe the EEO complaint process
in Region X and any changes to it; (3) assess whether the Region‘s
process is consistent with federal regulations and related guidance;
and (4) assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region‘s
employees and their attitude toward it.
What GAO Found:
In a geographic area where minorities represent a small portion of the
civilian workforce (about 13.5 percent), Region X generally had a
higher percentage of each minority group, except for American Indian
and Alaska Natives. Moreover, the percentage of minority employees in
Region X had increased from about 19 percent in fiscal year 1997 to
about 27 percent in fiscal year 2001. Women represented a much higher
proportion of SSA‘s workforce than of the civilian workforce.
Differences among racial/ethnic and gender groups for most of the
personnel actions reviewed were not statistically significant.
For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO
counselors described a process that mirrored the informal stage of the
required federal sector complaint process. In fiscal year 1999, Region
X changed its EEO process, so that EEO counselors were no longer
allowed to talk with managers but were required to submit their
questions in writing. In addition, managers were encouraged to
routinely have an attorney from the Office of the General Counsel
(OGC) review their written responses before these responses were
provided to the EEO counselors. After the changes were in place for
about a year, SSA headquarters officials held discussions with Region
X officials to explain that having written inquiries and OGC involved
in the informal EEO process was not consistent with the intent of
resolving issues informally. Beginning early in fiscal year 2001,
neither written EEO counselor queries to managers nor OGC involvement
was required in the informal process. Region X‘s former use of written
queries and OGC involvement were counter to the spirit of EEO
regulations and their related guidance, which emphasize the informal
nature of precomplaint counseling.
In doing its work at Region X, GAO found that SSA had issued EEO
handbooks for managers and employees, but the handbooks do not contain
agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process
complaints of discrimination. Agency-specific procedures are required
by EEO regulations. Absent such procedures, components of an agency
can use different procedures, as illustrated by Region X, resulting in
employees across the country being treated differently.
To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region‘s employees are
with the EEO process and their willingness to participate in it, GAO
surveyed all of the Region‘s employees. Most Region X employees
reported having received or seen within the last 2 years written
materials about EEO regulations and how to contact regional EEO
counselors. Also, almost half the employees reported a willingness to
participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint if they
believed they had been discriminated against. However, a sizeable
portion of employees”about 40 percent”reported being unwilling or
uncertain about becoming involved with the processes established for
handling EEO complaints.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that SSA adopt agency-specific procedures for
counselors to use in processing discrimination complaints, so
employees have the same process everywhere. GAO also recommends that
Region X take actions to enhance its EEO environment to increase trust
and, where necessary, address differences in personnel actions across
racial, ethnic, and gender groups.
SSA agreed with GAO‘s findings and cited actions it was taking on two
of GAO‘s three recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-604.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Victor S. Rezendes on
(202) 512-6806 or at rezendesv@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Composition of the Region X Workforce:
Region X Made Temporary Changes to the Informal Stage of the EEO
Process:
GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO:
Region X's Temporary Changes Were Counter to the Spirit of EEOC's
Regulations and SSA's Guidance:
Conclusions:
Recommendations:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objective 1:
Objective 2:
Objective 3:
Objective 4:
Appendix II: EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees:
Laws Prohibiting Discrimination:
EEOC Regulations Governing the Processing of Employment Discrimination
Complaints:
Appendix III: Region X Workforce by Grade Level:
Region X Employees in Grades GS-13 through GS-15:
Region X Employees in Grades GS-9 through GS-12:
Region X Employees in Grades GS-5 through GS-8:
Region X Employees in Grades GS-1 through GS-4:
Appendix IV: Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards:
Experience: Temporary Promotions:
Training:
Awards:
Appendix V: Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances:
Adverse Actions:
Adverse Actions Appealed to MSPB:
Region X EEO Precomplaint Counseling and Formal EEO Complaints Filed:
Grievances:
Settlements:
Appendix VI: Selected Results of GAO‘s Survey of Region X Employees on
Equal Employment Opportunity:
Operations of Region X's CREO:
Experiences with Situations Involving EEO in Region X:
Narrative Comments:
Appendix VII: GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Secuity Administration:
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Tables Tables :
Table 1: Composition of Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and
2001 by EEO Group Compared With CLF and CWF:
Table 2: Comparison of the Percentage of Competitive Promotions to the
Average Percentage Representation of Each EEO Group in the Workforce
for Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2001 in Region X:
Table 3: Comparison of the Percentage of Separations to the Average
Percentage Representation of Each EEO Group in the Workforce for Fiscal
Years 1997 Through 2001 in Region X:
Table 4: Final Disposition of Questionnaire:
Table 5: Percentage Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/Ethnicity
and Gender for Fiscal Year 1997:
Table 6: Percentage Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/Ethnicity
and Gender for Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 7: Comparison of the Percentage of JEPs to the Average Percentage
Representation in the Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2001 in
Region X by EEO Group:
Table 8: Comparison of the Percentage of Temporary Promotions to the
Average Percentage Representation in the Region X Workforce for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group:
Table 9: Comparison of the Percentage of GETA Training to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001:
Table 10: Comparison of the Percentage of Monetary Awards to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 11: Comparison of the Percentage of Quality Step Increases to the
Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X
Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 12: Comparison of the Percentage of Honor Awards to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 13: Types of Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001 by EEO Group:
Table 14: Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001
That Were Appealed to MSPB and Their Disposition by EEO Group:
Table 15: Requests for Counseling in Region X and Their Disposition in
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
Table 16: Bases Cited in EEO Counseling for Region X in Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001:
Table 17: Issues Cited by Individuals Requesting Counseling in Region X
in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
Table 18: Formal EEO Complaints Filed by Region X Employees for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 and Their Disposition:
Table 19: Bases for EEO Complaints Filed in Region X in Fiscal Years
1997 through 2001:
Table 20: Issues Cited in Complaints Filed for Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 21: Reasonable Accommodations Requested by Region X Employees for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group:
Table 22: Section 9 Grievances Filed in Region X by EEO Group for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 23: Number of Settlement Agreements and Amounts Awarded on
Settlements for MSPB Appeals, EEO Complaints, and a Mixed Case Filed in
Region X in Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Table 24: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to Participate in Counseling Because They Feared Retaliation:
Table 25: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to File a Formal Complaint Because They Feared Retaliation:
Table 26: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Whether Decisions Were
Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism:
Table 27: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Decisions Were Sometimes
or Never Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism:
Figures:
Figure 1: Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO
Group:
Figure 2: Hiring in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO
Group:
Figure 3: The EEO Complaint Process with Related Time Frames:
Figure 4: Region X Employees in Grades GS-13 through GS-15 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
Figure 5: Region X Employees in Grades GS-9 Through GS-12 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
Figure 6: Region X Employees in Grades GS-5 through GS-8 in Fiscal Years
1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
Figure 7: Region X Employees in Grades GS-1 through GS-4 in Fiscal Years
1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
Abbreviations:
ADR: alternative dispute resolution:
AFGE: American Federation of Government Employees:
AIAN: American Indian/Alaska Native:
AJ: administrative judge: :
CLF: Civilian Labor Force:
CPS: Current Population Survey:
CREO: Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity:
CWF: civilian workforce:
EEO: equal employment opportunity:
EEOC: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
GETA: Government Employees Training Act:
GS: general schedule:
JEP: Job Enhancement Program:
MD-110: Management Directive-110:
MSPB: Merit Systems Protection Board:
NAACP: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People:
OCREO: Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity:
OGC: Office of the General Counsel:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
SSA : Social Security Administration:
Letter July 16, 2003:
Letter
The Honorable Jim McDermott
The Honorable Jennifer Dunn
The Honorable Adam Smith
House of Representatives:
An October 2000 report by the Seattle branch of the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[Footnote 1]
alleged that the Social Security Administration's (SSA) Region X--which
covers Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington and has about 1,800
employees--may have violated federal regulations governing equal
employment opportunity (EEO) and the processing of employment
discrimination complaints. The report alleges, among other things, that
the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) in Region X interfered with EEO
precomplaint counseling, the informal stage of the EEO complaint
process.[Footnote 2] In addition, the report alleges that in the
informal stage, EEO counselors were required by Region X management to
submit written inquires to responsible management officials rather than
conversing with them to get information. SSA did not agree with the
report's allegations but agreed to two of its recommendations: to
provide on-site precomplaint counseling at one of the Region's largest
facilities and to provide ongoing training to management on provisions
concerning employees' rights in SSA's labor-management agreement. As a
result of the NAACP report, you asked us to look at the Region's EEO
program.
Federal employees are protected by various federal laws that prohibit
employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age, or disability (see app. II). In addition, federal
employees are protected from retaliation for filing a complaint,
participating in an investigation of a complaint, or opposing any
practice made unlawful under these antidiscrimination laws. The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued regulations that
govern how the discrimination claims of federal employees are to be
processed administratively.[Footnote 3] Federal agencies covered by
these regulations are responsible for developing and implementing their
own EEO programs and complaint processing procedures consistent with
EEOC's regulations.
As agreed with your offices, our objectives were to (1) provide
information on the composition of Region X's workforce by EEO group
(race/ethnicity and gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 overall
and for personnel actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse
actions; (2) describe the Region's EEO complaint process and any
changes to it during the 5-year period; (3) assess whether the Region's
EEO complaint process was consistent with federal regulations and
related guidance; and (4) assess the familiarity of the Region's
employees with the EEO process and their attitude toward it.
For our discussion of the composition of Region X's workforce as well
as the breakdown of personnel actions by EEO group, we used SSA data
provided by the Region's human resources management information system
for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 for African Americans, American
Indian/Alaska Natives (AIAN), Asian/Pacific Islanders (Asian),
Hispanics, and Whites.[Footnote 4] Each racial/ethnic group was broken
down by gender. As part of our analysis of the composition of SSA staff
for selected personnel actions, we tested to see if statistically
significant differences by EEO group occurred.[Footnote 5] Our analyses
of personnel actions are designed to provide information at a common
and aggregate level about EEO group differences in personnel actions at
Region X and not to determine whether or not discrimination existed.
The presence of a statistically significant difference does not prove
discrimination, nor does the absence of a statistically significant
difference prove that staff have not been discriminated against.
To describe the EEO process in the Region and any changes made to it
for the 5-year period, we reviewed documents provided by SSA
headquarters and Region X officials and interviewed those officials. To
determine whether the Region's EEO complaint process is consistent with
federal regulations, we reviewed EEOC's regulations governing how the
discrimination claims of federal employees are to be processed and
compared their requirements with the processes employed by the Region.
Also, to assess the familiarity of the Region's employees with the EEO
process and their attitude toward it, we surveyed all of the Region's
employees.
We did our work in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle from
January 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Details of our scope and methodology are
in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Women made up over 70 percent of SSA's national workforce in fiscal
year 2002, and Region X's workforce has mirrored this throughout all
ethnic groups for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with about two-thirds
of its employees being women in each of those years. Also in each year,
White employees comprised the majority of the Region X workforce, but
their representation declined from about 81 percent of the workforce in
fiscal year 1997 to about 73 percent in fiscal year 2001. Conversely,
minority employees in Region X increased a corresponding 8 percentage
points, from about 19 percent in fiscal year 1997 to about 27 percent
in fiscal year 2001. Increases occurred in all minority EEO groups,
except for AIAN women; the largest percentage increase occurred among
Hispanic women. A comparison of the Region X workforce for fiscal years
1997 and 2001 with the regional Civilian Labor Force shows that Region
X generally had a higher representation of minority employees in its
workforce for all EEO groups except AIANs.
Concerning selected personnel actions, Hispanic women had the largest
increase in the percentage of hires they represent, and African
American women had the largest decrease. For each EEO group, we looked
at the percentage of promotions and found that most EEO groups were
promoted at a rate that was about the same as or slightly higher than
each group's average percentage of representation in the workforce.
African American men and White women had the highest positive
percentage difference (1.1 percentage points) between their percentage
of competitive promotions and representation in the workforce. Only
White men and African American women were promoted at rates lower than
their average percentage representation in the workforce, with a 2.2
and 1.0 percentage-point difference, respectively. Also, for each EEO
group, we compared the percentage of separations with the average
percentage of the workforce, and this comparison showed that all
minority EEO groups separated at a rate that was slightly higher than
the average percentage of each group represented in the workforce for
the period. African American women had the largest percentage
difference between their percentage of separations and representation
in the workforce (1.3 percentage points), followed by AIAN women (1.1
percentage points). Only White men and women separated at rates lower
than their average percentage of representation in the workforce.
Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences among EEO
groups for most of the personnel actions we reviewed. However, it did
show statistically significant differences for some types of awards and
adverse actions. The analysis for the 5-year period showed
statistically significant differences among races concerning quality
step increases and nonmonetary, or honor, awards. In addition, the
analysis showed statistically significant differences among races for
short-term suspensions and between the sexes concerning removals. This
analysis was not designed to determine whether or not discrimination
existed but can indicate areas warranting further study by management.
Region X has not reviewed these differences to uncover their causes or
to determine their appropriateness.
Region X made changes to its EEO process in fiscal years 1999 and 2001.
For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X EEO
counselors described a process that mirrored the informal stage of the
complaint process outlined in EEOC's guidance to federal agencies. In
fiscal year 1999, Region X changed its EEO complaint process, so that
EEO counselors were no longer allowed to talk with managers about what
had transpired between employees alleging possible discrimination and
managers but were required to submit their questions in writing. The
then Regional Commissioner said the changes were instituted because
regional managers said that EEO counselors were not accurately
reporting their views. In addition, managers were encouraged to
routinely have an attorney from OGC review their written responses
before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. After the
changes were in place for about a year, SSA headquarters' officials
held discussions with Region X officials to explain that having written
inquiries and OGC involved in the informal EEO process was not
consistent with the intent of having the process arrive at an informal
resolution of issues. Beginning early in fiscal year 2001, EEO
counselors were not required to put queries to managers in writing, and
OGC involvement was not required in the informal process. The changes
Region X made to its complaint process in fiscal year 1999 are not
specifically addressed in federal sector EEOC regulations. Neither
EEOC's regulations nor its related guidance addresses the
appropriateness of written counselors' queries, written managers'
responses, or OGC involvement in the informal process. However, these
changes seem to have been counter to the spirit of the regulations and
their related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of
precomplaint counseling.
Also, in doing our work at Region X, we found that SSA had issued EEO
handbooks for managers and employees that discussed EEO in general and
the basic EEO process. However, the handbooks do not contain agency-
specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process complaints of
discrimination. Agency-specific procedures are required by EEO
regulations. Absent such procedures, components of an agency can use
different procedures, as illustrated by Region X, resulting in
employees across the country being treated differently.
To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region's employees were
with the EEO process and their willingness to participate in it, we
surveyed all of the Region's employees on the EEO process and EEO in
the Region. Most Region X employees reported having received or having
seen within the last 2 years written materials about EEO regulations
and how to contact regional EEO counselors. When asked about their
willingness, if they believed that they had been discriminated against,
to either participate in EEO counseling or to file a formal EEO
complaint, almost half of respondents indicated that they would be
generally or very willing to participate in counseling or to file a
formal EEO complaint. However, a sizeable portion of respondents to our
survey--about 40 percent--indicated they were unwilling or uncertain
about becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO
complaints. Our survey results indicate that if Region X does not work
to improve the perceptions of employees, it may not achieve a trusting
workplace.
We recommend that the Commissioner of SSA adopt agency-specific
procedures for counselors to use in processing complaints of
discrimination to ensure that employees face the same process
everywhere. We also recommend that Region X take actions to enhance its
EEO environment to increase trust and, where necessary, address
differences in personnel actions across racial, ethnic, and gender
groups. In commenting on a draft of this report, SSA said it was
updating materials dealing with the EEO process and would include
procedural guidelines as called for in EEOC's regulations governing
federal agencies' EEO procedures. SSA also said that as part of its
normal review process, it will review the statistically significant
differences we found in Region X personnel actions. However, SSA did
not agree with our recommendation that Region X take actions to enhance
its EEO environment to increase trust. SSA's written comments are
discussed near the end of this letter and reproduced in appendix VIII.
Background:
SSA administers three major federal programs that provide benefits to
more than 50 million people. The Old Age and Survivors Insurance
program provides benefits to retired workers and their dependents and
survivors. The Disability Insurance program provides benefits to
disabled workers. Supplemental Security Income provides income for
aged, blind, and disabled individuals with limited incomes and
resources. Heading SSA is a Commissioner who leads a central office in
Baltimore and 10 regional offices. The field organization, which is
decentralized to provide service at the local level, includes
approximately 1,300 field offices.
Federal law prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants
for employment on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin, age, or disability (see app. II for more details about
antidiscrimination laws). Under EEOC regulations, employees or
applicants for employment who believe that they have been discriminated
against by a federal agency may file a complaint with that agency.
Before filing a complaint, the employee must consult an EEO counselor
at the agency in order to try to informally resolve the matter. The
employee must contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter
alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action,
within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEO counselors
should determine if the employee believes that his or her problem is
the result of one or more of the allowable bases--race, color, sex
(including equal pay), religion, national origin, age (40 and over), or
disability--or in retaliation for having participated in an activity,
such as filing a complaint, that is protected by the various
antidiscrimination statutes. Counselors are to advise individuals that,
where the agency
agrees to offer alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the particular
case,[Footnote 6] they may choose to participate in either counseling
or in ADR.
After the counselor determines the basis or bases and claims, he or she
is to conduct a limited inquiry of the matter, which generally involves
speaking or meeting with the two parties. When the counselor has a good
grasp of the issues involved, he or she is ready to attempt resolution.
Resolution means that the employee and the agency come to terms with
the matter and agree on a solution. In seeking resolution, the
counselor is to listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties
and act as a neutral and not as an advocate for either the employee or
the agency. Counseling is to be completed within 30 days from the date
the employee contacted the EEO office for counseling.[Footnote 7] If
the matter is not resolved by the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is
unsuccessful,[Footnote 8] the counselor is required to inform the
employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal discrimination
complaint with the agency. The written notice must inform the employee
of the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint within 15 days of
receipt of the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with whom to
file a complaint, and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is informed
immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a representative.
After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency
must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint. If the agency
dismisses the complaint, the complainant can appeal the dismissal to
EEOC. If the agency accepts the complaint, it must investigate the
complaint and present the complainant with a report of the
investigation results. The complainant may then choose between
requesting a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge or a final
decision from the agency. Because SSA requires all employees to file
formal complaints with its headquarters in Baltimore, the formal
process was outside of the scope of our review. Appendix II provides
additional information on the processing of employment discrimination
complaints.
Composition of the Region X Workforce:
SSA's national workforce is predominantly women--about 71 percent in
fiscal year 2002--and Region X's workforce mirrors this in all ethnic
groups. For each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001, about two-thirds of
all Region X employees were women. The majority of Region X employees
were age 40 and over, constituting about three-quarters of the
workforce in each year. The number of employees with disabilities
increased slightly from about 10 percent in fiscal year 1997 to 11
percent in fiscal year 2001. Over the 5-year period, most of the Region
X workforce was in the general schedule (GS) grade levels 5 through 12.
The distribution across grade levels by EEO group varied somewhat but
was generally close to the representation of the various EEO groups in
the Region's workforce. The main differences were higher proportions of
men in the GS-13 through 15 grade levels and higher representation of
African Americans and Hispanics in the GS-5 through 8 grades. As
discussed in the section on hiring, substantial numbers of African
Americans and Hispanics have been hired over the last few years, which
may explain their higher representation in grades GS-5 through 8. See
appendix III for a discussion of grade levels by EEO group. Figure 1
shows the Region X workforce by EEO group for fiscal years 1997 and
2001.
Figure 1: Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO
Group:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
From fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001, the EEO group that
experienced the largest increase in its percentage of the workforce was
Hispanic women, who almost doubled from 57, or 3.3 percent of the
workforce, to 120, or 6.5 percent. This increase was followed by that
of Asian women, who increased by almost two-thirds from 55, or 3.2
percent of the workforce, in fiscal year 1997 to 93, or 5.0 percent of
the workforce, in fiscal year 2001. The percentage of the workforce
represented by White men and women and by AIAN women declined over the
5-year period.
To judge its diversity, SSA compares its workforce with the Civilian
Labor Force (CLF). Because the CLF data SSA uses are based on 1990
census data, we also calculated regional civilian workforce (CWF) data
of those age 18 and older in the four states covered by Region X for
fiscal year 2001, based on 2001 Current Population Survey
data.[Footnote 9] Table 1 shows data on the composition of the Region X
workforce in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 and compares those workforces
to data on the CLF and CWF. Region X generally had a higher or equal
representation of minority employees in its workforce for all EEO
groups compared with both the CLF and the CWF, except AIAN men in
fiscal years 1997 and 2001 and AIAN women in fiscal year 2001. In
addition, the representation of White men in the Region was below the
CLF and the CWF for both fiscal years 1997 and 2001.
Table 1: Composition of Region X Workforce in Fiscal Years 1997 and
2001 by EEO Group Compared With CLF and CWF:
EEO group: African American men; Region X workforce: As of September
30, 1997: Number: 39; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Percent: 2.3; Region X workforce: As of
September 30, 2001: Number: 48; Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Percent: 2.6; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 1.1;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 1.1.
EEO group: African American women; Region X workforce: As of September
30, 1997: Number: 87; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Percent: 5.0; Region X workforce: As of
September 30, 2001: Number: 101; Region X workforce: As of September
30, 2001: Percent: 5.5; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent:
0.9; Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 1.1.
EEO group: AIAN men; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 7; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent: 0.4;
Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Number: 9; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001: Percent:
0.5; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 0.9; Regional: CWF:
(FY 2001): Percent: 1.0.
EEO group: AIAN women; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 21; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent: 1.2;
Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Number: 19; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 1.0; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 0.8;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 1.5.
EEO group: Asian men; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 27; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent: 1.6;
Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Number: 41; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 2.2; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 1.6;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 1.8.
EEO group: Asian women; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 55; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent: 3.2;
Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Number: 93; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 5.0; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 1.6;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 2.2.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 36; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent: 2.1;
Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Number: 65; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 3.5; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 2.3;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 2.2.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Region X workforce: As of September 30,
1997: Number: 57; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Percent: 3.3; Region X workforce: As of
September 30, 2001: Number: 120; Region X workforce: As of September
30, 2001: Percent: 6.5; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent:
1.5; Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 2.6.
EEO group: White men; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 443; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent:
25.7; Region X workforce: As of September
30, 2001: Number: 447; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 24.2; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 49.1;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 43.2.
EEO group: White women; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997:
Number: 954; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent:
55.3; Region X workforce: As of September
30, 2001: Number: 904; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 48.9; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 40.0;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 43.3.
EEO group: Total; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Number:
1,726; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 1997: Percent: 100.1;
Region X workforce: As of September 30,
2001: Number: 1,847; Region X workforce: As of September 30, 2001:
Percent: 99.9; Regional: CLF: (FY 1990): Percent: 99.8;
Regional: CWF: (FY 2001): Percent: 100.0.
Source: Region X data and GAO analysis of Current Population Survey.
Note: Totals do not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Composition of Selected Personnel Actions by EEO Group:
We reviewed the EEO groups of those individuals who in fiscal years
1997 through 2001 were hired, promoted, separated, or received awards
or against whom Region X took adverse actions. For most of the
personnel actions we reviewed, our analysis showed no statistically
significant differences among EEO groups, but it did show statistically
significant differences for some types of awards and adverse
actions.[Footnote 10] The analysis showed statistically significant
differences among races and between the sexes concerning quality step
increases for fiscal year 2001. We also found statistically significant
differences by race/ethnicity for nonmonetary, or honor, awards. Our
statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO groups
for written reprimands; however, it showed statistically significant
differences among races for suspensions and statistically significant
differences between the sexes concerning involuntary separations. Human
capital management principles include certain internal safeguards to
help achieve consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and
nonpoliticization in the performance management process. One of these
safeguards can be reviewing the results of personnel actions for
statistically significant differences across groups. According to a
Region X official, the Region has not reviewed such differences to
uncover their causes or to determine their appropriateness.
Hiring:
From fiscal 1997 through fiscal year 2001, hiring among all minority
groups except AIAN men and women increased as a percentage of those
hired. The largest increase occurred among Hispanics. Hiring of
Hispanic women increased from 9, or 5.1 percent of all hiring, in
fiscal year 1997 to 21, or 9.8 percent in fiscal year 2001. Hiring of
Hispanic men increased from 4, or 2.3 percent of all hiring, in fiscal
year 1997 to 14, or 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2001. According to SSA
officials, one of the reasons for the increase in Hispanic hires was
that in fiscal year 1998 the Region hired 57 Spanish language bilingual
telephone service representatives[Footnote 11] when Spanish language
calls began being routed to the Auburn Teleservice Center as part of
the national phase-in of the "direct-in" option of service for the
Spanish-speaking:
:
public.[Footnote 12] African American women had the largest decrease in
the percentage of hires they represent, and the percentage of AIAN men
and women declined slightly. Figure 2 shows hiring in Region X by EEO
group for fiscal years 1997 and 2001. All EEO groups were hired at
rates that were above their representation in the workforce, except
White men and women.
Figure 2: Hiring in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO
Group:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Promotions:
Promotions involve either the selection of a current or former federal
employee for a higher grade position, using procedures that compare the
candidates on merit (i.e., competitive promotions), or promotion of an
employee without competition when the employee had earlier been
competitively selected and had demonstrated readiness for the next
grade (i.e., career ladder promotions). Because career ladder
promotions do not involve current competition, we focused on
competitive promotions. We calculated the percentage of promotions
received by members of each EEO group over the 5-year period and
compared it with the group's average percentage of the workforce
overall. This comparison showed that most EEO groups were promoted at a
rate that was generally about the same as or somewhat higher than each
group's average percentage of representation in the workforce for the
period. African American men and White women had the largest positive
percentage difference (1.1 percent) between their percentage of
competitive promotions and representation in the workforce. Only White
men and African American women were promoted at rates lower than their
average percentage of representation in the workforce, with a 2.2 and
1.0 percentage difference, respectively.[Footnote 13] Table 2 compares
the percentage of competitive promotions to the average percentage
representation of each EEO group in the workforce for fiscal years 1997
through 2001 in Region X.
Table 2: Comparison of the Percentage of Competitive Promotions to the
Average Percentage Representation of Each EEO Group in the Workforce
for Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2001 in Region X:
EEO group: African American men; Total competitive promotions for 5
years: 25; Percentage of competitive promotions: 3.6; Average
percentage representation in the workforce (5 years): 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total competitive promotions for 5
years: 30; Percentage of competitive promotions: 4.3; Average
percentage representation in the workforce (5 years): 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 4;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 0.6; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 12;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 1.7; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 13;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 1.9; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 31;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 4.5; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 20;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 2.9; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total competitive promotions for 5 years:
35; Percentage of competitive promotions: 5.1; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 156;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 22.6; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 364;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 52.8; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total competitive promotions for 5 years: 690;
Percentage of competitive promotions: 100.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce (5 years): 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[End of table]
Experience, training, and awards are among the elements considered in
the merit promotion process. Appendix IV describes by EEO group, those
employees in Region X who participated in selected training
opportunities and received temporary promotions and awards during
fiscal years 1997 through 2001. Concerning awards, our statistical
analysis showed that for the 5-year period, Whites were significantly
more likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans,
Hispanics, and AIANs; Asians were significantly more likely to receive
quality step increases than Hispanics and AIANs; and African Americans
were significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than
Hispanics. There were no statistically significant differences between
men and women. Because the Region acknowledged a disparity among
racial/ethnic groups concerning quality step increases and began trying
to address this disparity in fiscal year 1997, we also did a
statistical analysis of quality step increases for fiscal year 2001
alone. By fiscal year 2001, only two statistically significant
differences remained--women were significantly more likely to receive
quality step increases than men and Hispanics were significantly less
likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans or
Whites--which shows substantial progress. Our analysis also showed that
for the 5-year period, Asians were significantly more likely to receive
nonmonetary, or honor, awards than Whites, African Americans, and
Hispanics. Also, AIANs were significantly more likely to receive honor
awards than Hispanics.
Our statistical significance analysis was not designed to determine
whether or not discrimination occurred. However, the analysis could
indicate areas warranting further study.
Separations:
Separations include voluntary transfer to another SSA regional office,
resignation, retirement, and involuntary removal or termination.
Involuntary separations are discussed under adverse actions. Although
there were definite increases in the percentage of separations among
specific EEO groups for fiscal years 1997 through 2001, all EEO groups
experienced fluctuations in separations over the 5 years we reviewed.
In addition, the percentage of separations accounted for by retirements
increased from about a third in fiscal year 1997, to about 40 percent
in fiscal year 1998, peaked at about 55 percent in fiscal year 1999,
declined to almost 40 percent in fiscal year 2000, and returned to
about a third in fiscal year 2001.
We calculated the percentage of separations each EEO group represented
over the 5-year period and compared it with the average percentage of
the workforce by EEO. This comparison shows that all minority EEO
groups separated at a rate that was slightly higher than the average
percentage each group represented in the workforce for the period.
African American women had the largest percentage difference between
their percentage of separations and representation in the workforce
(1.3 percentage points), followed by AIAN women (1.1 percentage
points). Only Whites separated at rates lower than their average
percentage representation in the workforce. Table 3 compares the
percentage of separations to the average percentage of each EEO group
in the workforce for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in Region X.
Table 3: Comparison of the Percentage of Separations to the Average
Percentage Representation of Each EEO Group in the Workforce for Fiscal
Years 1997 Through 2001 in Region X:
EEO group: African American men; Total separations for 5 years: 20;
Percentage of separations: 2.6; Average percentage representation in
the workforce (5 years): 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total separations for 5 years: 50;
Percentage of separations: 6.6; Average percentage representation in
the workforce (5 years): 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total separations for 5 years: 4; Percentage of
separations: 0.5; Average percentage representation in the workforce (5
years): 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total separations for 5 years: 16; Percentage of
separations: 2.1; Average percentage representation in the workforce (5
years): 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total separations for 5 years: 19; Percentage of
separations: 2.5; Average percentage representation in the workforce (5
years): 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total separations for 5 years: 37; Percentage
of separations: 4.9; Average percentage representation in the workforce
(5 years): 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total separations for 5 years: 27; Percentage
of separations: 3.6; Average percentage representation in the workforce
(5 years): 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total separations for 5 years: 48;
Percentage of separations: 6.3; Average percentage representation in
the workforce (5 years): 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total separations for 5 years: 174; Percentage of
separations: 22.9; Average percentage representation in the workforce
(5 years): 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total separations for 5 years: 365; Percentage
of separations: 48.0; Average percentage representation in the
workforce (5 years): 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total separations for 5 years: 760; Percentage of
separations: 100.0; Average percentage representation in the workforce
(5 years): 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[End of table]
Adverse Actions:
Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5-year period.[Footnote 14]
These actions included written reprimands, short-term suspensions
(i.e., 14 days or less), long-term suspensions (i.e., 15 days or more),
demotions, and terminations or removals. Of the 142 actions, 65, or
about 46 percent, were for individuals who entered computer databases
without authorization. Our statistical analysis showed no significant
differences among EEO groups for written reprimands. However, for
short-term suspensions, AIANs and African Americans were significantly
more likely to receive suspensions of 14 days or less than Whites.
Also, men were significantly more likely to experience a removal or
termination than women. As mentioned earlier, our statistical analysis
was not designed to determine whether or not discrimination existed but
can identify areas worthy of further study by management. Appendix V
contains detailed information on adverse actions, appeals of such
actions, formal EEO complaints filed, and grievances filed under the
union grievance procedure for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in Region
X.
Region X Made Temporary Changes to the Informal Stage of the EEO
Process:
Region X made changes to its informal EEO process in fiscal years 1999
and 2001. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, current and former Region X
EEO counselors described an informal process that mirrored the federal
sector complaint process outlined in EEOC's guidance. In fiscal year
1999, Region X made changes to this process, under which EEO counselors
were no longer allowed to talk with managers but were required to
submit questions in writing to managers about what had transpired
between employees and managers. In addition, managers were encouraged
to routinely have an attorney from OGC review their written responses
before these responses were provided to the EEO counselors. In fiscal
year 2001, after discussions with SSA headquarters officials had
occurred, additional training was provided (for EEO counselors, OGC,
and executive staff), and the then Regional Commissioner made
conference calls to every manager about this issue, EEO counselors were
again allowed to talk with managers. Counselors said revoking the
changes brought the process back to what it was previously.
Because the Region could not provide us with documentation on how it
carried out its EEO complaint process or how it changed, we contacted
former and current EEO counselors and discussed this area with regional
officials. For fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Region X EEO counselors
described an informal process similar to the informal stage of the
federal sector complaint process outlined in EEOC guidance Management
Directive 110 (MD-110).[Footnote 15] First an employee would approach
an EEO counselor, who would take notes about the person's complaint,
including the claim being made and the basis or bases for the
complaint. The EEO counselor would then advise the employee of his or
her rights. The counselor would call the manager identified by the
employee, identify for the manager the issues and bases of the
complaint, and get the manager's input on what had transpired. Several
counselors said that after meeting or talking with the employees and
managers, they would typically read back managers' statements to them
to make sure that they had captured what the managers said. One
counselor mentioned letting managers read the statement.
According to SSA headquarters and Region X officials, in fiscal year
1999, Region X made changes to the procedures in the informal stage of
its EEO complaint process. These changes (1) required Region X EEO
counselors to put in writing questions to managers and (2) commonly
involved the Region's OGC in the informal stage of the process. The
then Regional Commissioner referred to these changes collectively as
the "written approach." After these changes took place, EEO counselors
were no longer allowed to talk with managers. In addition, according to
the then Regional Commissioner, as part of the written approach,
managers were encouraged to routinely have an attorney from OGC review
their written responses before these responses were provided to the EEO
counselors.
SSA's then Associate Commissioner of the Office of Civil Rights and
Equal Opportunity (OCREO) said that he thought the written queries came
out of Region X managers' distrust of what the EEO counselors
attributed to managers in their reports. The then Regional Commissioner
said that regional managers had reported that EEO counselors were not
accurately reflecting managers' views in the counselors' reports,
including a manager who in January 1998 said at a hearing on a formal
EEO complaint that he had not said things attributed to him. In
addition, according to the then Regional Commissioner, EEO counselor
training was inadequate before 1999, and the change to written queries
was put in place about the same time that the Region put in place a
formal training process for EEO counselors.[Footnote 16] The then
Regional Commissioner said that she wanted to use the written approach
to give managers the opportunity to give their views until training was
completed.
Also, in 1999, the Region began relying more on OGC in matters
concerning employee relations. In a memo dated February 4, 1999, the
Region announced that a new partnership had been put in place and that
OGC would be providing advice and counsel on all employee relations
issues and cases. According to the memo, these issues and cases were to
include misconduct, performance and attendance problems, reasonable
accommodation for employees with disabilities, and standards of
conduct. The memo does not refer to OGC involvement in EEO complaints
and cases. However, according to the then Regional Commissioner and
others, in fiscal year 1999, OGC began reviewing managers' written
responses to counselors' inquiries during the informal stage of the EEO
process. The then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that after the
February 1999 memo, he believes that it became normal in Region X for
managers to consult with OGC. He said that he thought that the OGC
involvement was gradual in the beginning. The Regional Chief Counsel
said that not every manager availed himself or herself of OGC's
services.
The then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that he started in his
position in March 2000 and that he thought he first became aware that
Region X was involving OGC in a routine way in the EEO process in
summer 2000. The then Associate Commissioner said that he and the then
SSA Deputy Commissioner for Human Resources agreed that there was a
perception that Region X's reliance on OGC went beyond the informal
process. The then Associate Commissioner said that during the informal
process, there should be a limited inquiry and that it should not
prevent EEO counselors from talking with managers or involve OGC. The
then Associate Commissioner said that SSA headquarters officials held
discussions with Region X officials to explain that having OGC involved
in the informal EEO process gave the appearance that the "deck is
stacked against employees." In discussions between SSA headquarters and
Region X officials, the then Associate Commissioner said that both
headquarters and regional officials agreed that it would be good to
have training to get the process back to what was outlined in EEOC's
guidance. As a result, the then Associate Commissioner said that SSA
headquarters sent OCREO staff to the Region to provide training in
October 2000 on basic counseling, limited inquiries, and report
writing. According to the then Associate Commissioner, the training was
provided to the Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) staff,
including EEO counselors and the CREO manager, OGC, and executive
staff.
In addition, the then Regional Commissioner said that she spoke with
the Area Director for Alaska and Washington, the Area Director for
Idaho and Oregon, and the Director of the Auburn Teleservice
Center[Footnote 17] and told them that OGC was not to be used during
the informal stage of inquiry. After the training took place, the then
Regional Commissioner said that she also had conference calls with
every manager about this issue. According to a Region X official, these
conference calls took place on October 8, 2000. Notes from a Region X
official concerning these conference calls indicate the following
topics on the informal stage of the EEO process were discussed:
* The role of the counselor is to conduct a neutral and limited
inquiry, not an investigation.
* Counselors will no longer submit questions in writing; they will
engage in a verbal dialogue with managers and supervisors, with
emphasis on informality.
* It is important to remember that a counselor is not trying to prove
right or wrong. He or she is working toward a solution.
* Resolution during informal counseling varies with the nature of
complaint.
Because the Region did not provide documentation that the written
approach was no longer a part of its informal EEO process, we contacted
Region X officials and former and current EEO counselors to confirm
that such a change took place. According to two Region X EEO counselors
who were in those positions at the time, beginning in early fiscal year
2001, they no longer had to put their queries in writing and were again
allowed to talk with managers.
GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO:
To gain an understanding of how familiar the Region's employees are
with the EEO process, their willingness to participate in it, and their
views on the work environment, we surveyed all of the Region's
employees on the EEO process and EEO environment in the Region and
achieved a 75 percent response rate. According to the results of our
survey, most Region X employees are familiar with the EEO process, with
almost two-thirds of Region X employees reporting having received or
having seen within the last 2 years written materials about the federal
government's EEO regulations and written materials describing how to
contact regional EEO counselors. Most respondents indicated that they
believed decisions concerning job or project assignments, training,
formal ratings, and monetary awards were always or mostly based on
merit and free of bias and favoritism. However, 23 percent of
respondents reported that they felt they had been discriminated
against. For example, when asked if they felt they were denied a job,
promotion, or other job benefit because of unlawful discrimination, 10
percent of respondents cited race, 8 percent cited age, and 8 percent
cited sex. In addition, when asked if they chose not to apply for a
promotion or developmental opportunity because they felt they had
little or no chance of being selected, 11 percent of respondents
indicated that age was the reason for not applying, 10 percent
indicated race was the reason, and 6 percent indicated sex was the
reason.
When asked about their willingness, if they believed that they had been
discriminated against, to either contact Region X's CREO to participate
in counseling or to contact OCREO in Baltimore to file a formal EEO
complaint, almost half of respondents indicated that they would be
generally or very willing to participate in counseling or to file a
formal EEO complaint. About 40 percent of respondents indicated that
they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to
file a formal EEO complaint if they believed that they had been
discriminated against. When asked to describe their reason for this
unwillingness or uncertainty, about 55 percent indicated that they were
unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling, and 51 percent, to
file a formal EEO complaint because they feared retaliation. Also, 45
percent of respondents indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain
to participate in counseling because of a concern that their contact
with the EEO counselor would not be kept confidential. Our prior work
has shown that leading organizations work to ensure that they create a
workplace that is free of discrimination and in which employees do not
fear or experience retaliation for engaging in activities protected by
antidiscrimination laws.[Footnote 18] Our survey results indicate that
if Region X does not work to improve the perceptions of employees, it
may not achieve a trusting workplace. Appendix VI discusses more of the
results of our survey, and appendix VII contains a copy of our
questionnaire and the responses to the questions.
Region X's Temporary Changes Were Counter to the Spirit of EEOC's
Regulations and SSA's Guidance:
The changes Region X made to the informal stage of its EEO process are
not specifically addressed in federal sector EEO regulations. Neither
EEOC's regulations nor the related guidance--MD-110--directly
addresses the appropriateness of written counselors' queries, written
managers' responses, or OGC involvement in the informal process.
However, these changes were counter to the spirit of the regulations
and the related guidance, which emphasize the informal nature of
precomplaint counseling. In addition, these changes were counter to
SSA's EEO handbook for managers and supervisors, which discusses
meetings and conversations between counselors and managers but not
written inquiries.[Footnote 19]
One of the stated purposes of precomplaint counseling is for employees
who believe they have been discriminated against to attempt to
informally resolve the matter.[Footnote 20] MD-110 states that in
almost all instances, informal resolution, freely arrived at by all
parties involved in the dispute, is the best outcome of a counseling
action. Appendix A to MD-110, which contains methods for seeking
resolution, suggests that during precomplaint counseling, the counselor
talk or meet with agency officials to explain the employee's
allegations, afford the agency an opportunity to present its position
concerning the allegations, and suggest how the problem might be
resolved.
SSA's then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that the changes made
by Region X in the informal EEO process, although not illegal, were
counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance, MD-
110.[Footnote 21] The then Associate Commissioner said that by having
written EEO counselor queries and managers' responses and involving
OGC, the informal stage of the EEO process in Region X was more like an
investigation in the formal stage of the EEO process. In addition, in a
June 2001 letter to a Region X employee, SSA's then Deputy Commissioner
for Human Resources wrote that, "Except in rare instances, OGC should
not be involved in the precomplaint process." When asked whether OGC
was involved in the informal stage of the EEO complaint process in
other SSA regions, the then Associate Commissioner for OCREO said that
he has never had any complaints or allegations that OGC was involved in
the informal part of the process in other regions.
In addition, the EEOC regulations require that all agencies ensure that
all agency employees provide full cooperation to EEO personnel in the
processing and resolution of precomplaint matters.[Footnote 22]
According to a recent EEOC report,[Footnote 23] the involvement of OGC
during the informal stage of the EEO process may thwart attempts during
counseling to resolve matters before the filing of a formal complaint.
An EEOC official responsible for overseeing agencies' EEO programs said
that involving OGC in the informal stage of the process causes EEOC
concern because complaints should be resolved informally and OGC
involvement can hinder the counselor's ability to facilitate
resolution. This official added that having managers put responses to
counselors' queries in writing and involving OGC at the informal stage
of the process could drag out the process and that the longer the
process takes, the less likely it is to result in an informal
settlement. In addition, the EEOC official said that EEOC encourages
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and requiring managers to put
responses in writing is counter to ADR. Finally, the EEOC official said
that written EEO counselor queries and managers' responses and the
involvement of OGC in the informal process were counter to the spirit
of the regulations.
Written counselors' queries and written managers' responses were
counter to SSA's EEO handbook for managers, which discusses meetings
and conversations between counselors and managers. The handbook also
discusses EEO counselors contacting responsible management officials to
discuss the issues causing concern,[Footnote 24] the basis or bases for
the complaint, and the remedy sought by the employee. The handbook for
managers also states that the manager's cooperation with the counselor
is required by regulation and that the manager may have a
representative present when meeting with an EEO counselor. Thus, the
language in the handbook for managers is similar to appendix A of MD-
110, which suggests that the counselor talk or meet with agency
officials and points out the requirement of EEOC's regulations that all
agencies ensure that all agency employees provide full cooperation to
EEO personnel in the processing and resolution of precomplaint matters.
SSA Has Not Adopted Procedures for Counselors Processing EEO Complaints
as Required by EEOC Regulations:
In doing our work on Region X, we asked SSA headquarters and Region X
for documents pertaining to the processing of EEO complaints. Among
other things, SSA provided its EEO handbook for managers and
supervisors as well as its employees' edition, which inform managers
and employees what they can expect when faced with the EEO process.
However, the handbooks, which were issued in November 1995, do not
contain agency-specific procedures on how EEO counselors are to process
such complaints. Under EEOC's regulations, agencies have certain
responsibilities for maintaining a continuing affirmative program to
promote equal opportunity and to identify and eliminate discriminatory
practices and policies.[Footnote 25] In order to implement their
programs, the regulations require agencies to (1) make written
materials available to all employees and applicants informing them of
the variety of EEO programs and administrative and judicial remedial
procedures available to them and (2) prominently post such materials in
all personnel and EEO offices and throughout the workplace.[Footnote
26] In addition, the regulations require agencies to adopt procedures
for processing--both at the informal and formal stage--individual and
class complaints of discrimination that are consistent with all other
applicable provisions of the regulations and the instructions for
complaint processing contained in MD-110.[Footnote 27]
SSA has addressed two of these regulatory requirements. It has
communicated in memorandums to all employees its policy prohibiting
discrimination against employees and applicants for employment, most
recently in a February 10, 2003, memorandum. SSA headquarters and
Region X officials provided us with copies of the written materials
containing information on the administrative and judicial remedial
procedures available. On a visit to Region X, we saw such written
materials posted on a wall in the Auburn Teleservice Center. We also
used SSA's Intranet to reach the Seattle Civil Rights and Equal
Opportunity Web site and confirm that the information is available
electronically to Region X employees as is current information about
whom to contact. SSA's EEO handbooks for managers and employees
discussed earlier also provide much information to their target groups.
However, SSA has not fully implemented the third regulatory requirement
to adopt agency-specific procedures for processing EEO complaints. When
asked if SSA had adopted procedures for processing EEO complaints, the
then Associate Commissioner for OCREO and Region X's manager for CREO
said that SSA follows the processes and procedures outlined in the
guidance on the EEOC regulations--MD-110.
An EEOC official responsible for overseeing agencies' EEO programs said
that EEOC anticipated that an agency would have step-by-step,
agency-specific procedures on how the agency would implement the
broader requirements covered by EEOC's regulations and related
guidance. The EEOC official said that EEOC anticipated that when
agencies adopted such procedures, they would be in writing, so others
could review them, if necessary. According to the EEOC official, having
agency-specific guidance is important so that people processing
complaints know exactly how to implement the regulations. The official
said he thinks it is appropriate for agencies to have standard
operating procedures, especially when they have more than one
installation or operations spread across installations or regions, to
help ensure consistent compliance with the regulations. The EEOC
official said that it was an issue of fairness to both the employees in
the EEO offices because they need to know what to do and what is
expected of them and to those who may file a complaint because they are
entitled to similar treatment across geographic areas for fairness.
Conclusions:
Our analysis showed no statistically significant differences for most
of the personnel actions we reviewed. However, we found statistically
significant differences among groups for certain awards and adverse
actions in Region X. This analysis was not designed to determine
whether or not discrimination existed. However, the analysis can
identify areas worthy of further study by management. Human capital
management principles include reviewing personnel actions to identify
and address statistically significant differences across groups in
order to help ensure EEO in the workplace. Region X has not reviewed
such differences to uncover their causes or to determine their
appropriateness.
Concerning whether the Region's EEO complaint process is consistent
with federal regulations, Region X's changes to written queries and OGC
involvement in its informal EEO complaint process are not specifically
addressed in federal sector EEO regulations. However, these changes
were counter to the spirit of the regulations and the related guidance,
which emphasize the informal nature of precomplaint counseling and
informal resolution. In addition, these changes were counter to SSA's
EEO handbook for managers and supervisors, which discusses meetings and
conversations between counselors and managers.
In doing our work at Region X, we found that although SSA had issued
EEO handbooks in November 1995 for managers and supervisors as well as
employees, the handbooks do not contain agency-specific procedures on
how EEO counselors are to process complaints of discrimination. Agency-
specific procedures on how to process EEO complaints--both at the
informal and formal stage--are required by EEOC's regulations and are
especially important if employees are geographically dispersed, as in
SSA, to ensure that all employees have the same process available to
them. Without agency-specific procedures for EEO counselors to process
complaints of discrimination, counselors in different components could
use different procedures, with the result that employees are not
treated consistently. Also, agency-specific procedures could alert
managers to possible problem areas when they consider changing
processes and could help prevent changes like the temporary ones in
Region X that ran counter to the spirit of EEOC's regulations.
In addition, a sizeable portion of respondents to our survey--about 40
percent--indicated they were unwilling to become or uncertain about
becoming involved with the processes established for handling EEO
complaints. Frequently cited reasons for concern about becoming
involved with the EEO process were a fear of retaliation and that
contact with the EEO counselor would not be kept confidential. These
concerns could deter individuals in Region X from exercising their
rights concerning EEO.
Recommendations:
We recommend that the Commissioner of SSA:
* Direct the Regional Commissioner of Region X to review the
statistically significant differences we found in adverse actions and
awards to determine why they occurred and what, if any, corrective
action is needed.
* Adopt standard operating procedures for EEO counselors that include
step-by-step procedures for processing complaints of discrimination so
that counselors and others involved in the process across the country
know what to do and employees face the same process everywhere.
* Direct the Regional Commissioner of Region X to establish a plan to
(1) enhance the Region's EEO environment to increase trust and (2)
measure the plan's effectiveness, such as with a periodic survey of
employees.
Agency Comments:
In a letter dated June 26, 2003 (see app. VIII), SSA's Commissioner
said that the agency acknowledged the report's general findings and
said that SSA is committed to ensuring equal treatment for all
employees and that its policies and practices are in compliance with
EEOC's procedures for processing complaints of discrimination.
Regarding our first recommendation, SSA said that it would continue to
monitor statistically significant differences. However, SSA did not
address the extent to which it would take action, if needed. We
continue to believe that this is an important component of following up
and alleviating concerns. Regarding our second recommendation that it
adopt standard operating procedures for EEO counselors, SSA stated that
it has standard operating procedures in the form of EEO handbooks and
an EEO training manual that SSA uses to instruct EEO counselors on how
to process EEO complaints. As discussed in the draft report, the
handbooks did not provide detailed procedures on how EEO counselors are
to process EEO complaints. However, the comments state that SSA is
going to update the handbooks and training manual to provide the
procedural guidelines called for in EEOC's regulations governing the
EEO process for federal agencies.
SSA said that it agrees all regions should foster an environment where
employees feel they can raise concerns and take part in a process
designed to resolve complaints and acknowledged that the change to the
EEO process in Region X may have caused some distrust. However, SSA
disagreed with our third recommendation that the Regional Commissioner
of Region X establish a plan to enhance the Region's EEO environment to
increase trust and measure the plan's effectiveness. The comments said
that our survey found that 51 percent of the Region's employees were
very or generally willing to participate in EEO counseling, 13 percent
were as willing as unwilling, and 10 percent were uncertain. SSA also
said that because Region X is no longer following the change to the EEO
process that may have caused some distrust, implementing a plan to
improve trust will not be necessary. Our survey was conducted in early
2003, or about 2 years after the "written approach" to the informal
stage of EEO complaint processing was discontinued. Our survey found
that 40 percent of employees were unwilling or uncertain about using
the current EEO process, indicating to us a need to focus on enhancing
the environment to increase trust. While SSA said it would share best
practices from other human resource management audits with Region X, a
periodic focus on Region X would, in our view, provide knowledge of
issues specific to Region X.
We will send copies of this report to the Commissioner of SSA, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and interested
congressional committees. We also will make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report is available on GAO's home page
at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have questions about this
report, please contact me on (202) 512-6806 or Kiki Theodoropoulos,
Senior Analyst, on (202) 512-4579. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IX.
Signed by:
Victor S. Rezendes
Managing Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes :
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
As agreed, our objectives were to (1) provide information on the
composition of Region X's workforce by EEO group (race/ethnicity and
gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 overall and for personnel
actions such as promotions, awards, and adverse actions; (2) describe
the EEO complaint process and any changes to it in the Region for the
5-year period; (3) assess whether the Region's EEO complaint process is
consistent with federal regulations and related guidance; and (4)
assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region's employees
and their attitude toward it.
Objective 1:
To identify the composition of Region X's workforce by EEO group (race/
ethnicity and gender) for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 in general and
for selected personnel actions (i.e., hires, promotions, separations,
awards, training, and adverse actions), we used SSA data provided by
the Region's human resources management information system for the 5-
year period.[Footnote 28] These data were limited to those employees of
Region X who were under the line authority of the then Regional
Commissioner and, therefore, do not include employees of the Office of
Inspector General, Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Office of the
General Counsel, and the Regional Office of Quality Assurance.
We assessed the reliability of data provided by Region X on the
workforce, hires, promotions, separations, and awards for fiscal years
1997 and 2001 by comparing them against the number of employees for
Region X in the Office of Personnel Management's Central Personnel Data
File and doing electronic data testing for obvious errors in
completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. We found data on the
workforce, permanent promotions, separations, and quality step
increases to be sufficiently reliable for fiscal years 1997 and 2001
for the purposes of this report. We did not check the reliability of
data on temporary promotions because they included details to lateral
positions, which are not counted as temporary promotions in the Central
Personnel Data File. Data on race/ethnicity for hires reported to us by
Region X were significantly different from such data for SSA Region X
hires in the Central Personnel Data File.
We discussed the differences with SSA headquarters and Region X
officials to determine the reason for them. The lead human resources
official in Region X said that when a new hire is processed via an
accession action, the employee cannot be paid until the personnel
action is released and updated through the Federal Personnel and
Payroll System, the automated personnel action processing system SSA
uses. During fiscal years 1997 through 2001, the official said that
often, because of time constraints, the system--which required a code
for race/ethnicity--was coded with unverified data (i.e., White) so the
action could go through and the employee be paid.[Footnote 29] The
official said that in August 2002 SSA began requiring the human
resources staff processing the new hire personnel actions to have the
completed form with race/ethnicity submitted electronically or by fax
on the day the employee reports for duty, so the data can be coded
properly into the initial accession action. An OPM official analyzed
Region X data on hires and confirmed that submissions of subsequent
personnel actions updated race/ethnicity for some Region X employees.
As a result, we decided the data on hires were sufficiently reliable
for our purposes.
We assessed the reliability of data on selections to the Job
Enhancement Program, adverse actions and their appeals, EEO counseling
requests, EEO complaints, reasonable accommodations, grievances, and
settlements, by doing in-depth comparisons of narratives concerning the
data with the data provided by Region X. In cases where we found
differences, we discussed inconsistencies with regional officials and
took steps to correct them. We determined that the data on Job
Enhancement Program selections, adverse actions and their appeals, EEO
counseling requests, EEO complaints, reasonable accommodations,
grievances, and settlements were sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this report.
To judge its diversity, SSA compares its workforce with the Civilian
Labor Force (CLF). Because data on the U.S. CLF that SSA uses are based
on 1990 census data, we decided to use data from the 2001 Current
Population Survey, which is a monthly survey of about 50,000 households
conducted by the Bureau of the Census and is the primary source of
current information on the labor force characteristics of the U.S.
population. To identify the fiscal year 2001 regional civilian
workforce, we used the March 2001 Current Population Survey to identify
the number of individuals 18 or older working in the private sector and
for federal, state, and local governments in the states of Alaska,
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
As part of our analysis, for our discussion of the composition of SSA
staff for selected personnel actions, we determined whether
statistically significant differences by race/ethnicity or gender
occurred. Our analyses of personnel actions are not designed to show
that discrimination does or does not exist; instead they are designed
to provide information at a common and aggregate level about race/
ethnicity and gender differences in personnel actions at Region X.
Therefore, our results should not be interpreted to indicate whether
discrimination has or has not occurred. The presence of statistically
significant difference does not prove discrimination, nor does the
absence of statistically significant difference prove that staff have
not been discriminated against. The presence of statistically
significant differences means that we are 95 percent confident that
differences could happen by chance in less than 5 percent of the cases.
Objective 2:
To describe the EEO process in Region X and any changes made to it for
the 5-year period, we reviewed documents provided by SSA headquarters
and Region X officials and interviewed those officials. Because the
Region was not able to provide us with written documentation on how it
carried out the informal stage of the EEO complaint process and when
changes to the process occurred, we contacted former and current Region
X EEO counselors and headquarters officials and relied on their views
concerning when these changes took place.
Objective 3:
To determine whether the Region's EEO complaint process was consistent
with federal regulations, we reviewed EEOC's regulations[Footnote 30]
and the related guidance--EEOC's Management Directive 110 (MD-110)--
governing how the discrimination claims of federal employees are to be
processed administratively and compared their requirements with the
processes described by SSA headquarters and Region X officials. We also
reviewed a recent EEOC on-site report on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, part of which concerned the involvement of OGC in the
informal part of the EEO process. In addition, we contacted an EEOC
official responsible for overseeing agencies' EEO programs to identify
EEOC's views concerning whether the types of changes Region X made to
its EEO process were consistent with federal regulations and the
related guidance.
Objective 4:
To assess the familiarity with the EEO process of the Region's
employees and their attitude toward it, we designed and sent
questionnaires to all SSA Region X employees to get their views on EEO.
We pretested the questionnaire instrument to minimize measurement error
and assure ourselves that respondents could interpret the questions
correctly and could provide the information requested. We modified
question wording and questionnaire format on the basis of what we
learned from these pretests.
SSA provided us with the home addresses for all individuals employed by
Region X as of August 27, 2002. On September 18, 2002, we mailed 1,801
questionnaires to these home addresses. One individual returned the
questionnaire, indicating that he or she was no longer an employee of
Region X. Because this individual did not answer any questions in the
survey, we dropped this individual from the universe of employees,
resulting in a revised universe of 1,800 Region X employees. After the
initial and a follow-up mailing, we received 1,364 questionnaires.
However, we received 9 questionnaires in which the tracking number for
nonresponse follow-up had been removed (see table 4). Therefore, our
analysis is based on 1,355 questionnaires, for a response rate of 75.3
percent. Table 4 summarizes the disposition of the questionnaire
returns for the revised universe of 1,800.
Table 4: Final Disposition of Questionnaire:
Disposition: Useable returns; Number: 1,355; Percent: 75.3.
Disposition: Delivered but not returned; Number: 436; Percent: 24.2.
Disposition: Returned but not useable[A]; Number: 9; Percent: 0.5.
Disposition: Total; Number: 1,800; Percent: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] We received nine questionnaires in which the tracking number for
nonresponse follow-up had been removed. Because anyone who did not
respond to the initial mailing was sent two questionnaires, these nine
questionnaires were not included in our analysis because they may have
been duplicates.
[End of table]
The questionnaire offered respondents the option of providing
additional comments relating to any of the items discussed therein. Of
the 1,355 useable returns, 307 respondents, or 22.7 percent, provided
narrative comments. The questionnaire results express the viewpoints
and attitudes of SSA Region X employees. All responses were anonymous;
if respondents included references to names, these references were
marked out before questionnaires were submitted to data entry.
All data were double-keyed and verified as part of the data entry
process. Computer analyses were performed to identify inconsistencies
(e.g., inappropriate skip patterns) or other indications of errors. All
computer analyses were verified by a second independent analyst.
Although it was not possible to test the validity of the respondents'
answers or the comments they made, we took several steps to check the
quality of our questionnaire data. We reviewed and edited completed
questionnaires, made internal consistency checks on several items, and
rechecked the accuracy of data entry on a random sample of
questionnaires. The practical difficulties of administering any
questionnaire may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling
errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is
interpreted by respondents could introduce unwanted variability in the
questionnaire's results. We took steps in the development of the
questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize
nonsampling errors. These steps, which we discussed earlier, included
pretesting and revising the questionnaires accordingly.
The percentage of respondents by race/ethnicity closely mirrored the
percentage of each race/ethnicity in the population of Region X
employees. The percentage of men and women responding to the survey
also matched their respective percentages in the Region X workforce.
The 95-percent confidence intervals for the percentage of respondents
who were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file
a formal discrimination complaint were +1.4 percentage points. The 95-
percent confidence intervals for the reasons why respondents were
unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal
discrimination complaint were + 2.3 percentage points.
We did our work in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Seattle from
January 2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: EEO Laws and Regulations Applicable to Federal Employees:
Laws Prohibiting Discrimination:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, makes it illegal
for employers, including federal agencies, to discriminate against
their employees or job applicants on the basis of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.[Footnote 31] The Equal Pay Act of
1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the
same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination.[Footnote 32] The
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, prohibits
employment discrimination against individuals who are 40 years of age
or older.[Footnote 33] Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended, prohibit discrimination against qualified
individuals with disabilities who work or apply to work in the federal
government.[Footnote 34] Federal agencies are required to provide
reasonable accommodation to qualified employees or applicants for
employment with disabilities, except when such accommodation would
cause an undue hardship. In addition, a person who files a complaint or
participates in an investigation of an EEO complaint or who opposes an
employment practice made illegal under any of the antidiscrimination
statutes is protected from retaliation. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing all of these
laws.
EEOC Regulations Governing the Processing of Employment Discrimination
Complaints:
Federal employees or applicants for employment who believe that they
have been discriminated against by a federal agency may file a
complaint with that agency.[Footnote 35] EEOC has established
regulations providing for the
processing of federal sector employment discrimination
complaints.[Footnote 36] This complaint process consists of two stages,
informal, or precomplaint counseling, and formal. Before filing a
complaint, the employee must consult an EEO counselor at the agency in
order to try to informally resolve the matter. The employee must
contact an EEO counselor within 45 days of the matter alleged to be
discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of
the effective date of the action. EEO counselors should determine if
the employee believes that his or her problem is the result of
discrimination on one or more of the bases--race, color, sex (including
equal pay), religion, national origin, age (40 and over), disability--
or in retaliation for having participated in activity protected by the
various antidiscrimination statutes. Counselors are to advise
individuals that, when the agency agrees to offer alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) in the particular case,[Footnote 37] they may choose
to participate in either counseling or in ADR.
After the counselor determines the basis or bases and claims, he or she
is to conduct a limited inquiry of the matter, which generally involves
speaking or meeting with the two parties. When the counselor has a good
grasp of the issues involved, he or she is ready to attempt resolution.
Resolution means that the employee and the agency come to terms with
the matter and agree on a solution. In seeking resolution, the
counselor is to listen to and understand the viewpoint of both parties
and act as a neutral and not as an advocate for either the employee or
the agency. Counseling is to be completed within 30 days from the date
the employee contacted the EEO office for counseling.[Footnote 38] If
the matter is not resolved by the 30th day of counseling or if ADR is
unsuccessful,[Footnote 39] the counselor is required to inform the
employee in writing of his or her right to file a formal discrimination
complaint with the agency. The written notice must inform the employee
of the (1) right to file a discrimination complaint within 15 days of
receipt of the notice, (2) appropriate agency official with whom to
file a complaint, and (3) duty to ensure that the agency is informed
immediately if the complainant retains counsel or a representative.
After a complainant files a formal discrimination complaint, the agency
must decide whether to accept or dismiss the complaint. If the agency
dismisses the complaint, the complainant has 30 days to appeal the
dismissal to EEOC.[Footnote 40] If the agency accepts the complaint, it
has 180 days to investigate the accepted complaint and present the
complainant with a record of investigation.[Footnote 41] Once the
agency finishes its investigation and the complainant receives the
investigation results, the complainant has 30 days to choose between
requesting (1) a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge
(AJ)[Footnote 42] or (2) a final decision from the agency. When a
hearing is not requested, the agency must issue a final decision within
60 days. In cases where a hearing is requested, the AJ has 180 days to
issue a decision and send the decision to the complainant and the
agency. If the AJ issues a finding of discrimination, he or she is to
order appropriate relief. After the AJ decision is issued, the agency
has 40 days to issue a final order notifying the complainant whether or
not the agency will fully implement the decision of the AJ, and the
employee has 30 days to file an appeal with EEOC.[Footnote 43] If the
agency issues an order notifying the complainant that the agency will
not fully implement the decision of the AJ, the agency also must file
an appeal with EEOC at the same time. Figure 3 illustrates the EEO
complaint process.
Figure 3: The EEO Complaint Process with Related Time Frames:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Where the agency agrees to offer ADR in the particular case,
employees may choose between participation in ADR and counseling
activities. ADR generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the
parties in a dispute that is used to resolve issues in controversy
including, but not limited to, mediation.
[End of figure]
If a complaint is one that can be appealed to the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) such as a removal, reduction in grade or pay,
or suspension for more than 14 days,[Footnote 44] the complaint is a
"mixed case." With a mixed-case complaint, the complainant has no right
to a hearing before an EEOC AJ. However, a complainant may appeal a
final agency decision to the MSPB within 30 days of receiving the
agency's decision. EEOC regulations provide that an individual may
raise claims of discrimination in a mixed case, either as a mixed-case
EEO complaint with the agency or a direct appeal to MSPB, but not both.
Under EEOC regulations, whatever action the individual files first is
considered an election to proceed in that forum. Filing a formal EEO
complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO forum;
contacting an EEO counselor or receiving EEO counseling does not
constitute such an election.[Footnote 45]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Region X Workforce by Grade Level:
Over the 5-year period from fiscal years 1997 through 2001, with the
exception of managers in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and eight
wage grade employees, the Region X workforce was in the general
schedule (GS) pay plan.[Footnote 46] The GS pay plan consists of 15
grades. The following sections contain a discussion of Region X
employees by EEO group in grade levels GS-13 through 15, GS-9 through
12, GS-5 through 8, and GS-1 through 4.
Region X Employees in Grades GS-13 through GS-15:
A total of 75 employees were in grades GS-13 through GS-15 in fiscal
year 1997, and 134 in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional gain
in these grades was among White women, who increased from 19, or about
25 percent of these grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 44, or about 33
percent, in fiscal year 2001. This was followed by a proportional
increase in these grades among Asian women, who increased in number
from 2, or almost 3 percent of the grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 10,
or 7.5 percent, in fiscal year 2001. Proportional increases also
occurred among African American women, AIAN men, and Hispanic men.
Hispanic women increased from 0 in fiscal year 1997 to 4, or 3 percent
of these grades in fiscal year 2001. Figure 4 shows the change in
Region X employees in grades GS-13 through GS-15 by EEO group between
fiscal years 1997 and 2001.
Figure 4: Region X Employees in Grades GS-13 through GS-15 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Region X Employees in Grades GS-9 through GS-12:
A total of 791 employees were in grades GS-9 through GS-12 in fiscal
year 1997, and 837 in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional gain
in these grades from fiscal year 1997 to 2001 was among Hispanic women,
who increased from 26, or 3.3 percent of the grades, in fiscal year
1997 to 46, or 5.5 percent, in fiscal year 2001. This was followed by a
proportional increase among Asian women, whose presence in the grades
went from 28, or 3.5 percent in fiscal year 1997, to 41, or 4.9
percent, in fiscal year 2001. Proportional increases also occurred
among African American men and women, Asian men, and Hispanic men.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of Region X employees in grades GS-9
through GS-12 by EEO group from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year 2001.
Figure 5: Region X Employees in Grades GS-9 Through GS-12 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Region X Employees in Grades GS-5 through GS-8:
A total of 818 employees were in grades GS-5 through GS-8 in fiscal
year 1997, and 844 in fiscal year 2001. The largest proportional gain
in these grades was among Hispanic women, who increased from 28, or 3.4
percent of these grades, in fiscal year 1997 to 66, or 7.8 percent, in
fiscal year 2001. This increase was followed by a proportional increase
among Hispanic men, whose presence in these grades doubled from 20, or
2.4 percent in fiscal year 1997, to 40, or 4.7 percent in fiscal year
2001 and Asian women, who increased from 22, or 2.7 percent, to 36, or
4.3 percent. The largest proportional loss occurred among White women,
who decreased from 439, or 53.7 percent of the grades in fiscal year
1997, to 387, or 45.9 in fiscal year 2001; this was followed by a loss
among White men, who decreased from 213, or 26 percent of the grades in
fiscal year 1997, to 205, or 24.3 percent in fiscal year 2001. No
change occurred in the number of African American or AIAN men in these
grades in fiscal years 1997 and 2001. Figure 6 shows Region X employees
in grades GS-5 through GS-8 in fiscal years 1997 and 2001 by EEO group.
Figure 6: Region X Employees in Grades GS-5 through GS-8 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Region X Employees in Grades GS-1 through GS-4:
A total of 35 employees were in grades GS-1 through GS-4 in fiscal year
1997, and 30 in fiscal year 2001. Numbers for both years included
students. There were no African American, Asian, or Hispanic men in
these grades in fiscal years 1997 and 2001. The largest proportional
increase occurred among AIAN women, who increased from 1, or 2.9
percent of these grades in fiscal year 1997, to 5, or 16.7 percent in
fiscal year 2001. This increase was followed by a proportional increase
in Asian women, who doubled from 3, or 8.6 percent of these grades in
fiscal year 1997 to 6, or 20.0 percent in fiscal year 2001. The largest
proportional loss was experienced among White women, who decreased from
21, or 60 percent of these grades in fiscal year 1997 to 10, or 33.3
percent in fiscal year 2001. Figure 7 shows Region X employees in
grades GS-1 through GS-4 from fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2001
by EEO group.
Figure 7: Region X Employees in Grades GS-1 through GS-4 in Fiscal
Years 1997 and 2001 by EEO Group:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Tables 5 and 6 show the distribution across grade levels by race/
ethnicity and gender compared with their representation in the Region's
workforce for fiscal years 1997 and 2001, respectively. As shown in the
tables, the distribution across grade levels by race/ethnicity or
gender varied somewhat but was generally close to the representation of
the various racial/ethnic groups or gender makeup of the Region's
workforce. The main differences were higher proportions of men in the
GS-13 through GS-15 grade levels and higher representation of African
Americans and Hispanics in the GS-5 through GS-8 grades.
Table 5: Percentage Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/Ethnicity
and Gender for Fiscal Year 1997:
Group: African Americans; GS-5 through GS-8: 9.4; GS-9 through GS-12:
4.9; GS-13 through GS-15: 8.0; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997:
7.3.
Group: AIANs; GS-5 through GS-8: 0.6; GS-9 through GS-12: 1.8; GS-13
through GS-15: 2.7; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997: 1.6.
Group: Asians; GS-5 through GS-8: 4.4; GS-9 through GS-12: 4.7; GS-13
through GS-15: 8.0; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997: 4.8.
Group: Hispanics; GS-5 through GS-8: 5.9; GS-9 through GS-12: 4.9; GS-
13 through GS-15: 4.0; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997: 5.4.
Group: Whites; GS-5 through GS-8: 79.7; GS-9 through GS-12: 83.7; GS-13
through GS-15: 77.3; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997: 81.0.
Group: Men; GS-5 through GS-8: 33.9; GS-9 through GS-12: 27.9; GS-13
through GS-15: 66.7; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997: 32.0.
Group: Women; GS-5 through GS-8: 66.1; GS-9 through GS-12: 72.1; GS-13
through GS-15: 33.3; Workforce as of: September 30, 1997: 68.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: Because the numbers were so small, we did not include data for
grades GS-1 through 4.
[End of table]
Table 6: Percentage Distribution across Grade Levels by Race/Ethnicity
and Gender for Fiscal Year 2001:
Group: African Americans; GS-5 through GS-8: 10.0; GS-9 through GS-12:
6.2; GS-13 through GS-15: 6.7; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 8.1.
Group: AIANs; GS-5 through GS-8: 0.9; GS-9 through GS-12: 1.3; GS-13
through GS-15: 2.2; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 1.5.
Group: Asians; GS-5 through GS-8: 6.4; GS-9 through GS-12: 7.3; GS-13
through GS-15: 9.7; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 7.3.
Group: Hispanics; GS-5 through GS-8: 12.6; GS-9 through GS-12: 8.0; GS-
13 through GS-15: 6.0; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 10.0.
Group: Whites; GS-5 through GS-8: 70.1; GS-9 through GS-12: 77.2; GS-13
through GS-15: 75.4; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 73.1.
Group: Men; GS-5 through GS-8: 34.7; GS-9 through GS-12: 29.2; GS-13
through GS-15: 51.5; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 33.0.
Group: Women; GS-5 through GS-8: 65.3; GS-9 through GS-12: 70.8; GS-13
through GS-15: 48.5; Workforce as of September 30, 2001: 67.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: Because the numbers were so small, we did not include data for
grades GS-1 through 4.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Temporary Promotions, Training, and Awards:
Experience, training, and awards are among the elements considered
under SSA's merit promotion process. Experience includes such
developmental assignments as temporary promotions and outside
activities. Training includes both external coursework (e.g., college
courses) and internal courses (provided by the agency). Awards include
monetary and nonmonetary, or honor, awards. The analysis for the 5-year
period showed statistically significant differences among races
concerning quality step increases and honor awards. These analyses were
not designed to determine whether or not discrimination occurred but
could indicate areas warranting further study by management.
The following sections describe by EEO group those who participated in
temporary promotion and selected training opportunities or received
awards for fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
Experience: Temporary Promotions:
For an employee to receive a temporary promotion to an existing
position for which he or she is qualified, the employee must meet (1)
established position qualification standards for the position and (2)
time-in-grade requirements for promotion. Region X employees can gain
experience through two kinds of temporary promotions or lateral
assignments. The Job Enhancement Program (JEP) is a regional
noncompetitive program that allows employees to voluntarily apply for
temporary assignments (both promotions and details to existing
positions) as a method of enhancing career development. According to a
2002 SSA report on Region X,[Footnote 47] JEPs enable regional
employees from grades GS-3 up to GS-14 to take a detail for up to 120
days in different positions. Table 7 shows the distribution of those
employees selected for JEPs by EEO group over the 5 years.
Table 7: Comparison of the Percentage of JEPs to the Average Percentage
Representation in the Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 Through 2001 in
Region X by EEO Group:
EEO group: African American men; Total JEPs across 5 years: 21;
Percentage of JEPs: 4.0; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total JEPs across 5 years: 34;
Percentage of JEPs: 6.5; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total JEPs across 5 years: 0; Percentage of JEPs:
0; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total JEPs across 5 years: 4; Percentage of
JEPs: 0.8; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total JEPs across 5 years: 4; Percentage of JEPs:
0.8; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total JEPs across 5 years: 14; Percentage of
JEPs: 2.7; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total JEPs across 5 years: 9; Percentage of
JEPs: 1.7; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total JEPs across 5 years: 14; Percentage of
JEPs: 2.7; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total JEPs across 5 years: 125; Percentage of
JEPs: 24.0; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total JEPs across 5 years: 295; Percentage of
JEPs: 56.7; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total JEPs across 5 years: 520; Percentage of JEPs:
99.9[A]; Average percentage representation in the workforce: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: JEPs include both temporary promotions and details to lateral
positions.
[A] Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
According to a Region X official, temporary promotions other than those
under a JEP can be made noncompetitively for up to 120 days.[Footnote
48] For promotions greater than 120 days, a vacancy announcement is
required for all positions. Some vacancies are announced as not-to-
exceed promotions for periods ranging from 1 to 2 years, with a 5-year
maximum allowable. Such announcements may state, "this position may be
extended or become permanent without further competition." Table 8
compares the percentage of temporary promotions to the average
percentage representation of each EEO Group in the workforce for fiscal
years 1997 through 2001 in Region X.
Table 8: Comparison of the Percentage of Temporary Promotions to the
Average Percentage Representation in the Region X Workforce for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group:
EEO group: African American men; Total temporary promotions across 5
years: 4; Percentage of temporary promotions: 4.3; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total temporary promotions across 5
years: 9; Percentage of temporary promotions: 9.7; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 0;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 0.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 0;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 0.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 2;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 2.2; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 3;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 3.2; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 4;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 4.3; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total temporary promotions across 5 years:
1; Percentage of temporary promotions: 1.1; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 19;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 20.4; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 51;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 54.8; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total temporary promotions across 5 years: 93;
Percentage of temporary promotions: 100.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[End of table]
Training:
When asked for data on training opportunities in Region X for fiscal
years 1997 through 2001, the Region provided data on employees who
participated in the Government Employees Training Act (GETA) program
(for fiscal years 1998 through 2001). Under the GETA program, SSA pays
for tuition and book expenses for an employee who enrolls in an
approved course taken at a university, college, or other recognized
educational institution. Courses covered included American Sign
Language; various languages (e.g., Spanish, French, and Russian);
writing; and Windows-based computing (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint). Table 9
compares the percentage of individuals receiving GETA training to the
average percentage representation by EEO group in the Region X
workforce for fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
Table 9: Comparison of the Percentage of GETA Training to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001:
EEO group: African American men; Total GETA training across 4 years: 8;
Percentage of GETA training: 1.8; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total GETA training across 4 years:
35; Percentage of GETA training: 7.9; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total GETA training across 4 years: 0; Percentage
of GETA training: 0.0; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total GETA training across 4 years: 4;
Percentage of GETA training: 1.0; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total GETA training across 4 years: 8; Percentage
of GETA training: 1.8; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total GETA training across 4 years: 11;
Percentage of GETA training: 2.5; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total GETA training across 4 years: 12;
Percentage of GETA training: 2.7; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total GETA training across 4 years: 30;
Percentage of GETA training: 6.8; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total GETA training across 4 years: 69;
Percentage of GETA training: 15.6; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total GETA training across 4 years: 265;
Percentage of GETA training: 60.0; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total GETA training across 4 years: 442; Percentage
of GETA training: 100.1[A]; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[A] Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
Awards:
SSA's awards are divided into monetary and honor awards. According to
Region X, monetary awards consist of Recognition of Contribution
awards, which recognize employees who have maintained high-quality
performance and may be either a one-time performance award paid as a
lump sum or a quality step increase, which permanently increases pay;
Commendable Act or Service awards, which are granted to an employee--as
an individual or as a member of a group--to recognize major
accomplishments or contributions that have promoted the mission of the
organization; and On-the-Spot awards, which are special act or service
awards that recognize employees for noteworthy accomplishments or
contributions on individual tasks or assignments.[Footnote 49] We found
for the 5-year period statistically significant differences among races
concerning quality step increases and honor awards. Table 10 compares
the percentage of monetary awards to the average percentage
representation by EEO group in the workforce for the 5-year
period.[Footnote 50]
Table 10: Comparison of the Percentage of Monetary Awards to the
Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X
Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
EEO group: African American men; Total monetary awards for 5 years:
173; Percentage of monetary awards: 2.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total monetary awards for 5 years:
443; Percentage of monetary awards: 5.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 27; Percentage
of monetary awards: 0.3; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 96;
Percentage of monetary awards: 1.1; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 174;
Percentage of monetary awards: 2.0; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 296;
Percentage of monetary awards: 3.3; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 229;
Percentage of monetary awards: 2.6; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 436;
Percentage of monetary awards: 4.9; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 2,159;
Percentage of monetary awards: 24.4; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 4,823;
Percentage of monetary awards: 54.5; Average percentage representation
in the workforce: 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total monetary awards for 5 years: 8,856; Percentage
of monetary awards: 100.1[A]; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[A] Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
According to the Region X Affirmative Employment Plan for fiscal year
1997, the region conducted an analysis of award types and recipient EEO
profiles in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. According to this report, in
fiscal year 1996, only Whites received quality step increases; the
Region began addressing this disparity in fiscal year 1997. Our
statistical analysis for the 5-year period showed that Whites were
significantly more likely to receive quality step increases than
African Americans, Hispanics, and AIANs; Asians were significantly more
likely to receive quality step increases than Hispanics and AIANs; and
African Americans were significantly more likely to receive quality
step increases than Hispanics. There were no statistically significant
differences between men and women. Because the Region acknowledged a
disparity among racial/ethnic groups concerning quality step increases
and began trying to address this disparity in fiscal year 1997, we also
did a statistical analysis of quality step increases for fiscal year
2001 alone. By fiscal year 2001, only two statistically significant
differences remained--women were significantly more likely to receive
quality step increases than men and Hispanics were significantly less
likely to receive quality step increases than African Americans or
Whites--which shows substantial progress. Table 11 compares the
percentage of quality step increases to the average percentage
representation by EEO group in the workforce for the 5-year period.
Table 11: Comparison of the Percentage of Quality Step Increases to the
Average Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X
Workforce for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
EEO group: African American men; Total quality step increases for 5
years: 8; Percentage of quality step increases: 1.6; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total quality step increases for 5
years: 22; Percentage of quality step increases: 4.4; Average
percentage representation in the workforce: 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 0;
Percentage of quality step increases: 0.0; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 2;
Percentage of quality step increases: 0.4; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 11;
Percentage of quality step increases: 2.2; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 22;
Percentage of quality step increases: 4.4; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 3;
Percentage of quality step increases: 0.6; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total quality step increases for 5 years:
12; Percentage of quality step increases: 2.4; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 130;
Percentage of quality step increases: 25.7; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 295;
Percentage of quality step increases: 58.4; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total quality step increases for 5 years: 505;
Percentage of quality step increases: 100.1[A]; Average percentage
representation in the workforce: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[A] Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
According to Region X, honor awards consist of the Commissioner's
Citation, which is SSA's highest honorary award that is granted to
individuals who have made a superior contribution to SSA; the
Commissioner's Team Award, which recognizes groups of employees for
their team approach in carrying out or supporting SSA's mission of
providing quality service in administering national Social Security
programs; and the Deputy Commissioner's Citation and the Regional
Commissioner's Citation, both of which recognize SSA employees for
outstanding achievements to SSA. Our analysis showed that for the 5-
year period, Asians were significantly more likely to receive honor
awards than Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics. Also, Native
Americans were significantly more likely to receive honor awards than
Hispanics. Table 12 compares the percentage of honor awards to the
average percentage representation by EEO group in the workforce for the
5-year period.
Table 12: Comparison of the Percentage of Honor Awards to the Average
Percentage Representation by EEO Group in the Region X Workforce for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
EEO group: African American men; Total honor awards for 5 years: 2;
Percentage of honor awards: 1.3; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 2.5.
EEO group: African American women; Total honor awards for 5 years: 5;
Percentage of honor awards: 3.4; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 5.3.
EEO group: AIAN men; Total honor awards for 5 years: 2; Percentage of
honor awards: 1.3; Average percentage representation in the workforce:
0.4.
EEO group: AIAN women; Total honor awards for 5 years: 2; Percentage of
honor awards: 1.3; Average percentage representation in the workforce:
1.0.
EEO group: Asian men; Total honor awards for 5 years: 4; Percentage of
honor awards: 2.7; Average percentage representation in the workforce:
1.9.
EEO group: Asian women; Total honor awards for 5 years: 11; Percentage
of honor awards: 7.4; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 4.0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Total honor awards for 5 years: 4; Percentage
of honor awards: 2.7; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 3.0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Total honor awards for 5 years: 2;
Percentage of honor awards: 1.3; Average percentage representation in
the workforce: 5.4.
EEO group: White men; Total honor awards for 5 years: 31; Percentage of
honor awards: 20.8; Average percentage representation in the workforce:
24.8.
EEO group: White women; Total honor awards for 5 years: 86; Percentage
of honor awards: 57.7; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 51.7.
EEO group: Total; Total honor awards for 5 years: 149; Percentage of
honor awards: 99.9[A]; Average percentage representation in the
workforce: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[A] Total does not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Region X Adverse Actions, Appeals of Adverse Actions, EEO
Complaints, and Grievances:
The following sections discuss the adverse actions taken by Region
X,[Footnote 51] appeals of such actions filed with the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB), precomplaint EEO counseling sought, formal EEO
complaints filed, and grievances filed by Region X employees in fiscal
years 1997 through 2001.
Adverse Actions:
Region X took 142 adverse actions over the 5-year period.[Footnote 52]
For nonprobationary employees, the common pattern of progressive
discipline is reprimand, short-term suspension (a suspension of 14 days
or less), long-term suspension (a suspension of 15 days or more), and
removal. Probationary employees face terminations.[Footnote 53] Of the
142 actions, 65, or about 46 percent, were for individuals who entered
computer databases without authorization.[Footnote 54]
Our statistical analysis showed no significant differences among EEO
groups for written reprimands. However, we found statistically
significant differences among races for short-term suspensions and
between the sexes concerning removals. For short-term suspensions,
AIANs and African Americans were significantly more likely to receive
suspensions of 14 days or less than Whites. Men were significantly more
likely to experience a removal or termination than women. About 14
percent of those who had adverse actions taken against them had
disabilities compared with the representation in the Region's workforce
of about 11 percent. Table 13 shows the types of adverse actions by EEO
group.
:
Table 13: Types of Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001 by EEO Group:
EEO group: African American men; Written reprimand: 0;
Suspension: Short-term: 5; Suspension: Long-term: 1;
Involuntary separation[A]: Termination: 1; Involuntary separation[A]:
Removal: 3; Demotion: 0; Total actions: 10; Percent: 7.0%.
EEO group: African American women; Written reprimand: 4;
Suspension: Short-term: 7; Suspension: Long-term: 1;
Involuntary separation[A]: Termination: 1; Involuntary separation[A]:
Removal: 1; Demotion: 0; Total actions: 14; Percent: 9.9%.
EEO group: AIAN men; Written reprimand: 0; Suspension: Short-
term: 0; Suspension: Long-term: 2; Involuntary separation[A]:
Termination: 1; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 0; Demotion: 0;
Total actions: 3; Percent: 2.1%.
EEO group: AIAN women; Written reprimand: 0; Suspension:
Short-term: 4; Suspension: Long-term: 0; Involuntary
separation[A]: Termination: 0; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 0;
Demotion: 0; Total actions: 4; Percent: 2.8%.
EEO group: Asian men; Written reprimand: 1; Suspension: Short-
term: 2; Suspension: Long-term: 0; Involuntary separation[A]:
Termination: 0; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 1; Demotion: 0;
Total actions: 4; Percent: 2.8%.
EEO group: Asian women; Written reprimand: 0; Suspension:
Short-term: 3; Suspension: Long-term: 1; Involuntary
separation[A]: Termination: 0; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 1;
Demotion: 0; Total actions: 5; Percent: 3.5%.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Written reprimand: 1; Suspension:
Short-term: 4; Suspension: Long-term: 0; Involuntary
separation[A]: Termination: 1; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 1;
Demotion: 1; Total actions: 8; Percent: 5.6%.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Written reprimand: 3; Suspension:
Short-term: 4; Suspension: Long-term: 0; Involuntary
separation[A]: Termination: 3; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 2;
Demotion: 0; Total actions: 12; Percent: 8.5%.
EEO group: White men; Written reprimand: 9; Suspension: Short-
term: 12; Suspension: Long-term: 2; Involuntary separation[A]:
Termination: 9; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 5; Demotion: 0;
Total actions: 37; Percent: 26.1%.
EEO group: White women; Written reprimand: 10; Suspension:
Short-term: 21; Suspension: Long-term: 5; Involuntary
separation[A]: Termination: 5; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal: 4;
Demotion: 0; Total actions: 45; Percent: 31.7%.
EEO group: Total; Written reprimand: 28; Suspension: Short-
term: 62; Suspension: Long-term: 12; Involuntary
separation[A]: Termination: 21; Involuntary separation[A]: Removal:
18; Demotion: 1; Total actions: 142; Percent: 100.0.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[A] When a probationary employee is discharged or a temporary employee
is separated because of conduct or performance, the action is
characterized as a termination. When a nonprobationary employee is
discharged, the action is characterized as a removal. Eight other
individuals resigned when faced with termination or removal--one
African American woman, one Hispanic man, three White men, and three
White women.
[End of table]
Adverse Actions Appealed to MSPB:
Employees can appeal adverse actions to MSPB.[Footnote 55] Appealable
actions include removal, reduction in grade or pay, or suspension of 15
days or more. Under the negotiated national agreement between SSA and
the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), employees may
elect to appeal such actions to MSPB or through the negotiated
grievance procedure but not both.
Of the 142 adverse actions Region X took from fiscal year 1997 through
fiscal year 2001, 15 employee appeals were filed with MSPB. Of these 15
appeals, SSA settled 9; MSPB found that SSA's action was appropriate in
3 cases; MSPB dismissed 2 appeals; and 1 is still pending. Table 14
shows the number of Region X employee appeals to MSPB by EEO group and
their disposition for the 5-year period.
Table 14: Adverse Actions in Region X for Fiscal Years 1997 through
2001 That Were Appealed to MSPB and Their Disposition by EEO Group:
[Empty].
EEO group: African American men; Appeals filed: 2;
Disposition: Settled: 2;
EEO group: African American women; Appeals filed: 0;
EEO group: AIAN men; Appeals filed: 1; Disposition: Affirmed[A]: 1;
EEO group: AIAN women; Appeals filed: 0;
EEO group: Asian men; Appeals filed: 0;
EEO group: Asian women; Appeals filed: 2; Disposition: Affirmed[A]: 2;
EEO group: Hispanic men; Appeals filed: 0;
EEO group: Hispanic women; Appeals filed: 2; Disposition: Settled: 2;
EEO group: White men; Appeals filed: 3; Disposition: Settled:
2; Disposition: Dismissed: 1;
EEO group: White women; Appeals filed: 5; Disposition:
Settled: 3; Disposition: Dismissed: 1; Disposition: Pending: 1.
EEO group: Total; Appeals filed: 15; Disposition: Settled: 9;
Disposition: Affirmed[A]: 3; Disposition: Dismissed: 2; Disposition:
Pending: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note 1: Settlements include reduced, rescinded, and mitigated agency
actions.
Note 2: One employee may have filed more than one appeal.
[A] Affirmed means that an agency's action was found to be appropriate.
[End of table]
When a federal employee alleges that a removal, reduction in grade or
pay, or suspension of 15 or more days is discriminatory, the employee
may file a formal EEO complaint, and because the complaint can be
appealed either to MSPB or EEOC, the complaint is a "mixed case." Under
EEOC regulations, whatever action an employee files first is considered
an election to proceed in that forum. For example, filing a formal EEO
complaint constitutes an election to proceed in the EEO forum, although
contacting an EEO counselor or receiving EEO counseling does not
constitute such an election. For Region X employees, who are covered by
a collective bargaining agreement that permits claims of discrimination
to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, they similarly may
elect to file an EEO complaint or a grievance. Before filing a
grievance that alleges discrimination, the employee may first discuss
the allegation with an EEO counselor.
Region X EEO Precomplaint Counseling and Formal EEO Complaints Filed:
SSA is required to prepare and submit an annual report to EEOC that
includes the number of individuals counseled, monetary and nonmonetary
settlements made during the precomplaint counseling phase, the number
of complaints filed during a reporting period, the bases and issues
alleged in all complaints filed during a reporting period, and the
number and amounts of monetary and nonmonetary settlements of closed
complaints.
Precomplaint Counseling:
We requested data for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 on the number of
individuals who approached the Region's Civil Rights and Equal
Opportunity office to ask for counseling because they felt that they
had experienced discrimination. The Region provided data for only the
last 2 years because, according to a Region X official, verifiable data
were only available for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.[Footnote 56] Table
15 shows the incidents of counseling requests for fiscal years 2000 and
2001.
Table 15: Requests for Counseling in Region X and Their Disposition in
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
Fiscal year: 2000; Requests for counseling[A]: 38;
Disposition: Withdrawn: 6; Disposition: Settled: 2; Disposition: Not
pursued: 2.
Fiscal year: 2001; Requests for counseling[A]: 35;
Disposition: Withdrawn: 0; Disposition: Settled: 1; Disposition: Not
pursued: 11; Disposition: Closed[B]: 28: 23.
Fiscal year: Total; Requests for counseling[A]: 73;
Disposition: Withdrawn: 6; Disposition: Settled: 3; Disposition: Not
pursued: 13; Disposition: Closed[B]: 28: 51.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
[A] Does not necessarily equate to the number of individuals seeking
counseling, because one individual may account for more than one
request for counseling in each year.
[B] Closed includes matters that were resolved with an informal
settlement agreement, resolved without an informal settlement
agreement, and unresolved.
[End of table]
Under EEOC regulations, before filing an EEO complaint, in order to try
to informally resolve the matter, individuals who believe they have
been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
(including equal pay), national origin, age (i.e., 40 or over), or
handicapping condition or who have suffered retaliation or reprisal
must consult an EEO counselor. Table 16 provides the bases cited in
fiscal years 2000 and 2001--the 2 years for which Region X provided
data on incidents of EEO counseling.
Table 16: Bases Cited in EEO Counseling for Region X in Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001:
Bases: Race; Fiscal years: 2000: 14; Fiscal years: 2001: 7; Total: 21.
Bases: Color; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001: 0; Total: 0.
Bases: Religion; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001: 0; Total:
0.
Bases: Sex; Fiscal years: 2000: 7; Fiscal years: 2001: 12; Total: 19.
Bases: National origin; Fiscal years: 2000: 1; Fiscal years: 2001: 0;
Total: 1.
Bases: Age; Fiscal years: 2000: 13; Fiscal years: 2001: 7; Total: 20.
Bases: Disability; Fiscal years: 2000: 17; Fiscal years: 2001: 16;
Total: 33.
Bases: Retaliation/reprisal; Fiscal years: 2000: 12; Fiscal years:
2001: 5; Total: 17.
Bases: Parental status[A]; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001:
1; Total: 1.
Bases: Unstated; Fiscal years: 2000: 1; Fiscal years: 2001: 0; Total:
1.
Bases: Total; Fiscal years: 2000: 65; Fiscal years: 2001: 48; Total:
113.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: One request for counseling may contain one or more bases.
[A] This basis is not covered by the EEOC regulations but is
prohibited by Executive Order 13152 (May 2, 2000).
[End of table]
Table 17 shows the issues cited by individuals who requested EEO
counseling in fiscal years 2000 and 2001.
Table 17: Issues Cited by Individuals Requesting Counseling in Region X
in Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001:
Issues: Assignment of duties; Number of requests for counseling citing
issue: 3.
Issues: Suspension; Number of requests for counseling citing issue: 3.
Issues: Termination; Number of requests for counseling citing issue: 4.
Issues: Disparate treatment; Number of requests for counseling citing
issue: 3.
Issues: Duty hours; Number of requests for counseling citing issue: 3.
Issues: Evaluation/appraisal; Number of requests for counseling citing
issue: 2.
Issues: Harassment (nonsexual); Number of requests for counseling
citing issue: 18.
Issues: Harassment (sexual); Number of requests for counseling citing
issue: 2.
Issues: Hostile work environment; Number of requests for counseling
citing issue: 2.
Issues: Promotion/nonselection; Number of requests for counseling
citing issue: 21.
Issues: Retirement (involuntary); Number of requests for counseling
citing issue: 2.
Issues: Time and attendance/leave; Number of requests for counseling
citing issue: 5.
Issues: Training; Number of requests for counseling citing issue: 3.
Issues: Reasonable accommodation; Number of requests for counseling
citing issue: 7.
Issues: Working conditions; Number of requests for counseling citing
issue: 7.
Issues: Other; Number of requests for counseling citing issue: 10.
Issues: Total; Number of requests for counseling citing issue: 95.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: One request for counseling may contain one or more issues.
[End of table]
Employees requesting counseling and Region X entered into three
informal settlement agreements during counseling requested in fiscal
years 2000 and 2001. The informal settlements agreed to included a lump
sum payment of $5,000, a letter of recommendation, and a temporary
promotion under a JEP.
Formal EEO Complaints Filed:
If employees cannot resolve to their satisfaction the matters for which
they sought counseling, they file formal complaints with the Office of
Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity in SSA headquarters in Baltimore.
Table 18 shows the number of formal complaints filed by Region X
employees for fiscal years 1997 through 2001 and the disposition of
those complaints.
Table 18: Formal EEO Complaints Filed by Region X Employees for Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2001 and Their Disposition:
Fiscal year: 1997; Filed[A]: 10; Disposition: Withdrawn: 1;
Disposition: Settled: 6; Disposition: Dismissed: 1; Disposition:
Disposition: Finding of discrimination: No: 1; Disposition:
Finding of discrimination: Yes: 1[B]; Disposition: Total closed: 10;
Disposition: Pending: 0.
Fiscal year: 1998; Filed[A]: 26; Disposition: Withdrawn: 4;
Disposition: Settled: 9; Disposition: Dismissed: 7; Disposition:
Disposition: Finding of discrimination: No: 3; Disposition:
Finding of discrimination: Yes: 0; Disposition: Total closed: 23;
Disposition: Pending: 3.
Fiscal year: 1999; Filed[A]: 23; Disposition: Withdrawn: 3;
Disposition: Settled: 10; Disposition: Dismissed: 4; Disposition:
Disposition: Finding of discrimination: No: 4; Disposition:
Finding of discrimination: Yes: 0; Disposition: Total closed: 21;
Disposition: Pending: 2.
Fiscal year: 2000; Filed[A]: 16; Disposition: Withdrawn: 4;
Disposition: Settled: 5; Disposition: Dismissed: 4; Disposition:
Disposition: Finding of discrimination: No: 1; Disposition:
Finding of discrimination: Yes: 0; Disposition: Total closed: 14;
Disposition: Pending: 2.
Fiscal year: 2001; Filed[A]: 14; Disposition: Withdrawn: 0;
Disposition: Settled: 2; Disposition: Dismissed: 3; Disposition:
Disposition: Finding of discrimination: No: 0; Disposition:
Finding of discrimination: Yes: 0; Disposition: Total closed: 5;
Disposition: Pending: 9.
Fiscal year: Total; Filed[A]: 89; Disposition: Withdrawn: 12;
Disposition: Settled: 32; Disposition: Dismissed: 19; Disposition:
Disposition: Finding of discrimination: No: 9; Disposition:
Finding of discrimination: Yes: 1; Disposition: Total closed: 73;
Disposition: Pending: 16.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: For settlements, a global settlement can address more than one
filed EEO discrimination complaint, MSPB appeal, or union grievance and
may account for more than one individual settlement.
[A] Because one individual may have filed more than one EEO complaint,
the number filed is not necessarily equal to the number of
complainants.
[B] The EEOC administrative judge hearing the case had a finding of
discrimination and offered partial relief, which SSA and the
complainant are appealing.
[End of table]
Table 19 shows by fiscal year the bases for the 89 EEO complaints filed
by Region X employees in fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
Table 19: Bases for EEO Complaints Filed in Region X in Fiscal Years
1997 through 2001:
Bases: Race; Fiscal years: 1997: 7; Fiscal years: 1998: 12; Fiscal
years: 1999: 10; Fiscal years: 2000: 8; Fiscal years: 2001: 5; Total:
42.
Bases: African American; Fiscal years: 1997: 5; Fiscal years: 1998: 4;
Fiscal years: 1999: 8; Fiscal years: 2000: 4; Fiscal years: 2001: 2;
Total: 23.
Bases: Asian; Fiscal years: 1997: 1; Fiscal years: 1998: 0; Fiscal
years: 1999: 0; Fiscal years: 2000: 1; Fiscal years: 2001: 0; Total: 2.
Bases: Hispanic; Fiscal years: 1997: 1; Fiscal years: 1998: 1; Fiscal
years: 1999: 0; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001: 2; Total: 4.
Bases: Other; Fiscal years: 1997: 0; Fiscal years: 1998: 1; Fiscal
years: 1999: 0; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001: 0; Total: 1.
Bases: White; Fiscal years: 1997: 0; Fiscal years: 1998: 6; Fiscal
years: 1999: 2; Fiscal years: 2000: 3; Fiscal years: 2001: 1; Total:
12.
Bases: Color; Fiscal years: 1997: 0; Fiscal years: 1998: 0; Fiscal
years: 1999: 0; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001: 1; Total: 1.
Bases: Religion; Fiscal years: 1997: 0; Fiscal years: 1998: 3; Fiscal
years: 1999: 0; Fiscal years: 2000: 0; Fiscal years: 2001: 1; Total: 4.
Bases: Sex; Fiscal years: 1997: 4; Fiscal years: 1998: 25; Fiscal
years: 1999: 14; Fiscal years: 2000: 7; Fiscal years: 2001: 3; Total:
53.
Bases: Women; Fiscal years: 1997: 3; Fiscal years: 1998: 14; Fiscal
years: 1999: 5; Fiscal years: 2000: 1; Fiscal years: 2001: 2; Total:
25.
Bases: Men; Fiscal years: 1997: 1; Fiscal years: 1998: 11; Fiscal
years: 1999: 9; Fiscal years: 2000: 6; Fiscal years: 2001: 1; Total:
28.
Bases: National origin; Fiscal years: 1997: 2; Fiscal years: 1998: 3;
Fiscal years: 1999: 7; Fiscal years: 2000: 1; Fiscal years: 2001: 1;
Total: 14.
Bases: Age; Fiscal years: 1997: 0; Fiscal years: 1998: 5; Fiscal years:
1999: 7; Fiscal years: 2000: 7; Fiscal years: 2001: 0; Total: 19.
Bases: Handicapping; condition; Fiscal years: 1997: 2; Fiscal years:
1998: 7; Fiscal years: 1999: 11; Fiscal years: 2000: 9; Fiscal years:
2001: 8; Total: 37.
Bases: Mental; Fiscal years: 1997: 1; Fiscal years: 1998: 0; Fiscal
years: 1999: 4; Fiscal years: 2000: 3; Fiscal years: 2001: 3; Total:
11.
Bases: Physical; Fiscal years: 1997: 1; Fiscal years: 1998: 7; Fiscal
years: 1999: 7; Fiscal years: 2000: 6; Fiscal years: 2001: 5; Total:
26.
Bases: Retaliation/reprisal; Fiscal years: 1997: 4; Fiscal years: 1998:
11; Fiscal years: 1999: 14; Fiscal years: 2000: 8; Fiscal years: 2001:
2; Total: 39.
Bases: Total; Fiscal years: 1997: 19; Fiscal years: 1998: 66; Fiscal
years: 1999: 63; Fiscal years: 2000: 40; Fiscal years: 2001: 21; Total:
209.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: Because one individual may have filed more than one EEO
complaint, the number filed is not necessarily equal to the number of
complainants, and one EEO complaint may contain one or more bases.
[End of table]
Table 20 shows the number of issues cited in the 89 EEO complaints
filed by Region X employees during fiscal years 1997 through 2001.
Table 20: Issues Cited in Complaints Filed for Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001:
Issues: Assignment of duties; Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 5.
Issues: Awards; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 8.
Issues: Reprimand; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 7.
Issues: Suspension; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 8.
Issues: Termination; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 4.
Issues: Duty hours; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 2.
Issues: Evaluation/appraisal; Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 2.
Issues: Harassment (nonsexual); Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 30.
Issues: Harassment (sexual); Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 2.
Issues: Hostile work environment; Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 4.
Issues: Pay including overtime; Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 3.
Issues: Promotion/nonselection; Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 29.
Issues: Reasonable accommodation; Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 16.
Issues: Retirement (involuntary); Number of issues cited in complaints
filed: 1.
Issues: Time & attendance; Number of issues cited in complaints filed:
11.
Issues: Training; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 3.
Issues: Working conditions; Number of issues cited in complaints filed:
19.
Issues: Other; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 4.
Issues: Total; Number of issues cited in complaints filed: 158.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: One filed complaint may contain one or more issues.
[End of table]
As shown in table 19, the top four bases for which Region X employees
filed EEO complaints were sex, race, retaliation (i.e., for filing a
complaint or participating in an investigation of a complaint), and
handicapping condition. Of those bases that involved handicapping
condition, six also claimed that they were denied reasonable
accommodation. Reasonable accommodation includes any modification or
adjustment to a job application process, the work environment, or the
way a job is customarily performed that enables a qualified applicant
with a disability to compete equally or a qualified person with a
disability to perform the essential
functions of the position or enjoy equal benefits and privileges of
employment.[Footnote 57]
As shown in table 20, the top four issues cited in the filed complaints
were harassment (nonsexual), nonselection for promotion, working
conditions, and reasonable accommodation.
The reasonable accommodation process begins when an individual makes a
request for the accommodation, followed by a request in writing
(completion of a form) or in electronic format. Among the items that
can be approved of as an accommodation at the regional level are
requests of office equipment costing less than $100, a change in
schedule, and requests for reassignment. For office equipment or
assistive technologies (e.g., computer hardware or software that enable
people with disabilities to perform the essential functions of their
job) costing $100 or more, assistive technologies training, and sign
language interpreter services, a request must be forwarded to the
Disability Services Team in the Office of Civil Rights and Equal
Opportunity in SSA headquarters in Baltimore. Table 21 shows the number
of accommodations requested by Region X employees for fiscal year 1997
through 2001 and their disposition.
Table 21: Reasonable Accommodations Requested by Region X Employees for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 by EEO Group:
EEO group: Requested: : Accommodation: [Empty].
EEO group: African American men; Requested: 6; Accommodation:
Withdrawn: 0; Accommodation: Approved: 0; Accommodation: Denied: 2;
Accommodation: Alternate: 1; Accommodation: Forwarded: 3;
Disability Services Team: Approved: 3; Disability Services Team:
Denied: 0; Disability Services Team: Alternate: 0.
EEO group: African American women; Requested: 7;
Accommodation: Withdrawn: 0; Accommodation: Approved: 4;
Accommodation: Denied: 3; Accommodation: Alternate: 0; Accommodation:
Forwarded: 1; Disability Services Team: Approved: 1;
Disability Services Team: Denied: 0; Disability Services Team:
Alternate: 0.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Requested: 4; Accommodation:
Withdrawn: 1; Accommodation: Approved: 1; Accommodation: Denied: 0;
Accommodation: Alternate: 0; Accommodation: Forwarded: 3;
Disability Services Team: Approved: 2; Disability Services Team:
Denied: 1; Disability Services Team: Alternate: 0.
EEO group: White men; Requested: 23; Accommodation: Withdrawn:
0; Accommodation: Approved: 9; Accommodation: Denied: 6; Accommodation:
Alternate: 4; Accommodation: Forwarded: 4; Disability Services
Team: Approved: 2; Disability Services Team: Denied: 0; Disability
Services Team: Alternate: 1.
EEO group: White women; Requested: 45; Accommodation:
Withdrawn: 5; Accommodation: Approved: 18; Accommodation: Denied: 4;
Accommodation: Alternate: 4; Accommodation: Forwarded: 19;
Disability Services Team: Approved: 7; Disability Services Team:
Denied: 10; Disability Services Team: Alternate: 0.
EEO group: Total; Requested: 85; Accommodation: Withdrawn: 6;
Accommodation: Approved: 32; Accommodation: Denied: 15; Accommodation:
Alternate: 9; Accommodation: Forwarded: 30[A]; Disability
Services Team: Approved: 15; Disability Services Team: Denied: 11;
Disability Services Team: Alternate: 1.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: Multiple categories may be recorded for a single request for
accommodation. For example, in one case, an accommodation may be
denied. In another case, a request may be forwarded to the Disability
Services Team, which may deny the requested accommodation and approve
an alternative accommodation. We counted each category of
accommodation; therefore, one person may have multiple results to his
or her request.
[A] For three requested accommodations that were forwarded to the
Disability Services Team, there is no record of the Disability Services
Team's decision.
[End of table]
Grievances:
Under the negotiated national agreement between SSA and the AFGE,
individual employees or their union representatives may file Section 9
grievances on such matters as adverse actions or EEO issues.[Footnote
58] At any time after the Section 9 grievance is filed, up to the time
the grievance decision is issued, the grievance may be withdrawn. If a
management official finds that the grievance has merit, or can agree
with the employee/representative on some or all of the points at issue,
he or she may grant full or partial relief, giving the employee all or
a portion of what was requested.[Footnote 59] If the management
official does not find a violation of the negotiated agreement or
workplace policy or practice, or cannot agree to the requested relief,
the grievance is denied. Unresolved Section 9 grievances may be
advanced to arbitration by the union. Multiple categories may be
recorded for a single grievance. For example, in one case, a grievance
may be denied, and the grievant takes no additional action. In another
case, a grievance may be denied, and the grievant/representative
invokes arbitration, and then does or does not pursue the case. We
counted each category of relief or arbitration for each grievance.
Table 22 shows the Section 9 grievances filed in Region X for fiscal
years 1997 through 2001.
Table 22: Section 9 Grievances Filed in Region X by EEO Group for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
EEO group: African American men; Grievances filed[A]: 16; Withdrawn[B]:
2; Relief: Granted: 2; Relief: Partial: 0; Relief: Denied: 13;
Arbitration: Invoked: 8; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 1;
Arbitration: Awarded: 3; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 3.
EEO group: African American women; Grievances filed[A]: 24;
Withdrawn[B]: 8; Relief: Granted: 7; Relief: Partial: 4;
Relief: Denied: 6; Arbitration: Invoked: 2; Arbitration: Not:
pursued: 1; Arbitration: Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached:
0.
EEO group: AIAN men; Grievances filed[A]: 2; Withdrawn[B]: 1;
Relief: Granted: 0; Relief: Partial: 0; Relief: Denied: 1;
Arbitration: Invoked: 1; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 1; Arbitration:
Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 0.
EEO group: AIAN women; Grievances filed[A]: 3; Withdrawn[B]: 0;
Relief: Granted: 0; Relief: Partial: 1; Relief: Denied: 2;
Arbitration: Invoked: 0; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 0;
Arbitration: Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 0.
EEO group: Asian men; Grievances filed[A]: 1; Withdrawn[B]: 0;
Relief: Granted: 0; Relief: Partial: 0; Relief: Denied: 1;
Arbitration: Invoked: 0; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 0; Arbitration:
Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 0.
EEO group: Asian women; Grievances filed[A]: 5; Withdrawn[B]: 0;
Relief: Granted: 1; Relief: Partial: 0; Relief: Denied: 4;
Arbitration: Invoked: 0; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 0;
Arbitration: Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 0.
EEO group: Hispanic men; Grievances filed[A]: 6; Withdrawn[B]: 2;
Relief: Granted: 2; Relief: Partial: 0; Relief: Denied: 3;
Arbitration: Invoked: 3; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 1;
Arbitration: Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 1.
EEO group: Hispanic women; Grievances filed[A]: 12; Withdrawn[B]: 3;
Relief: Granted: 1; Relief: Partial: 1; Relief: Denied: 7;
Arbitration: Invoked: 3; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 2;
Arbitration: Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 1.
EEO group: White men; Grievances filed[A]: 57; Withdrawn[B]: 17;
Relief: Granted: 7; Relief: Partial: 6; Relief: Denied: 28;
Arbitration: Invoked: 5; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 2;
Arbitration: Awarded: 1; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 1.
EEO group: White women; Grievances filed[A]: 134; Withdrawn[B]: 20;
Relief: Granted: 36; Relief: Partial: 11; Relief: Denied: 66;
Arbitration: Invoked: 10; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 8;
Arbitration: Awarded: 0; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 0.
EEO group: Total; Grievances filed[A]: 260; Withdrawn[B]: 53;
Relief: Granted: 56; Relief: Partial: 23; Relief: Denied: 131;
Arbitration: Invoked: 32; Arbitration: Not: pursued: 16; Arbitration:
Awarded: 4; Arbitration: Settlement: reached: 6.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note 1: One individual may have filed more than one grievance.
Note 2: Multiple categories may be recorded for a single grievance. For
example, in one case, a grievance may be denied, and the grievant takes
no additional action. In another case, a grievance may be denied, and
the grievant/representative invokes arbitration, and then does or does
not pursue the case. We counted each category of relief or arbitration,
when appropriate, for each grievance; therefore, one person may have
multiple categories to his or her grievance.
[A] Two grievances were found not grievable, so they were only counted
as filed.
[B] Withdrawn includes five grievances that were withdrawn after
arbitration was invoked.
[End of table]
Settlements:
Twenty-one settlement agreements were signed by SSA and the individuals
who appealed an adverse action, filed an EEO complaint, or filed a
grievance. These agreements could consist of monetary or nonmonetary
terms or both, and five consisted entirely of nonmonetary
terms.[Footnote 60] A global settlement addressed more than one filed
EEO discrimination complaint, MSPB appeal, or union grievance;
therefore, the number of complaints settled is higher than the number
of settlement agreements.[Footnote 61] Table 23 contains information on
settlement agreements for appealed adverse actions, filed EEO
complaints, and a mixed case that includes a union grievance for fiscal
years 1997 through 2001.
Table 23: Number of Settlement Agreements and Amounts Awarded on
Settlements for MSPB Appeals, EEO Complaints, and a Mixed Case Filed in
Region X in Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001:
Fiscal year settled: 1999; Number of settlement agreements[A]: 2;
Amount: $17,820.00.
Fiscal year settled: 2000; Number of settlement agreements[A]: 4;
Amount: 11,163.91.
Fiscal year settled: 2001; Number of settlement agreements[A]: 2;
Amount: 8,337.86.
Fiscal year settled: 2002; Number of settlement agreements[A]: 11;
Amount: 143,831.66.
Fiscal year settled: 2003; Number of settlement agreements[A]: 2;
Amount: 20,000.
Fiscal year settled: Total; Number of settlement agreements[A]: 21;
Amount: $201,153.43.
Source: GAO analysis of Region X data.
Note: A global settlement can address more than one filed EEO
discrimination complaint, MSPB appeal, or union grievance; therefore,
the number of complaints settled may be higher than the number of
settlement agreements.
[A] The number of settlement agreements includes five that had only
nonmonetary terms. Settlement agreements do not constitute an admission
of any wrongdoing, harassment, discrimination, and/or violation of law,
statute, or regulation.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Selected Results of GAO's Survey of Region X Employees on
Equal Employment Opportunity:
In our survey of Region X employees about EEO, we asked all Region X
employees for their views (1) on the operations of Region X's Civil
Rights and Equal Opportunity (CREO) office and (2) about their
experiences with situations involving EEO in Region X within the past 2
years. Because we received more than a 70 percent response rate (75
percent), our results are representative of the views and attitudes of
Region X employees.[Footnote 62]
Operations of Region X's CREO:
Almost 60 percent of respondents were either generally or very familiar
with the responsibilities of the CREO office before reading our
description of those responsibilities. In addition, most Region X
employees are familiar with the EEO process. About two-thirds of
respondents reported having received or having seen within the last 2
years written materials about the federal government's EEO regulations
and written materials describing how to contact regional EEO
counselors.
When asked about their willingness, if they believed that they had been
discriminated against, to either contact Region X's CREO to participate
in counseling or to contact the Office of Civil Rights and Equal
Opportunity (OCREO) in Baltimore to file a formal EEO complaint, almost
half of respondents indicated that they would be generally or very
willing to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO complaint.
Also, 3 percent of respondents indicated that they had contacted CREO
to participate in counseling in the last 2 years, and 2 percent of
respondents indicated that they had contacted OCREO in Baltimore to
file a formal complaint during that time.
About 40 percent of respondents indicated that they were unwilling or
uncertain to participate in counseling or to file a formal EEO
complaint if they believed that they had been discriminated against; we
did an analysis of their responses to identify the reason for this
unwillingness or uncertainty. About 55 percent of the respondents
indicated that they were unwilling or uncertain to participate in
counseling and 51 percent to file a formal EEO complaint if they
believed that they had been discriminated against because they feared
retaliation.
We did a further analysis of those respondents who indicated that they
were unwilling or uncertain to participate in counseling if they
believed that they had been discriminated against because they feared
retaliation. Table 24 shows the breakdown of respondents by race/
ethnicity and sex of those who indicated an unwillingness or
uncertainty to participate in counseling. Table 25 shows the breakdown
of respondents by race/ethnicity and sex of those who indicated an
unwillingness or uncertainty to file a formal complaint.
Table 24: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to Participate in Counseling Because They Feared Retaliation:
Race/ethnicity: Nonminority; Percentage of respondents who feared
retaliation: 73.
Race/ethnicity: Minority; Percentage of respondents who feared
retaliation: 27.
Sex: Men; Percentage of respondents who feared retaliation:
29.
Sex: Women; Percentage of respondents who feared
retaliation: 71.
Source: GAO's survey of Region X employees about EEO.
[End of table]
Table 25: Minority Status and Sex of Respondents Who Were Unwilling or
Uncertain to File a Formal Complaint Because They Feared Retaliation:
Race/ethnicity: Nonminority; Percentage of respondents who feared
retaliation: 77.
Race/ethnicity: Minority; Percentage of respondents who feared
retaliation: 23.
Sex: Men; Percentage of respondents who feared retaliation:
28.
Sex: Women; Percentage of respondents who feared
retaliation: 72.
Source: GAO's survey of Region X employees about EEO.
[End of table]
Other reasons respondents indicated for being unwilling or uncertain to
participate in counseling if they believed that they had been
discriminated against included the concern that their contact with the
EEO counselor would not be kept confidential (about 45 percent) and the
concern that the matter, if resolved informally, would not result in a
mutually satisfactory solution for all parties concerned (about 34
percent). Other reasons respondents indicated for being unwilling or
uncertain to file a formal complaint if they believed that they had
been discriminated against included the concern that their complaint
would not be handled in a fair manner (about 33 percent).
Experiences with Situations Involving EEO in Region X:
As shown in table 26, most Region X employees responding to our survey
indicated that they believed decisions concerning job or project
assignments, training, formal ratings, and monetary awards were always
or mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism. About half of
the respondents indicated that they believed that decisions concerning
nonmonetary awards and recognition were always or mostly based on merit
and free of bias and favoritism. Less than half of the respondents
indicated that they believed decisions concerning promotion and career
advancement were always or mostly based on merit and free of bias and
favoritism.
Table 26: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Whether Decisions Were
Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism:
Type of personnel or pay decision: Job or project assignments;
Percentage of respondents indicating decisions were: Always or mostly
based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 61; Percentage of
respondents indicating decisions were: Sometimes or never or almost
never based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 18.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Training; Percentage of respondents
indicating decisions were: Always or mostly based on merit and free of
bias and favoritism: 68; Percentage of respondents indicating decisions
were: Sometimes or never or almost never based on merit and free of
bias and favoritism: 12.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Formal performance appraisals/
ratings; Percentage of respondents indicating decisions were: Always or
mostly based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 74; Percentage
of respondents indicating decisions were: Sometimes or never or almost
never based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 11.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Monetary awards and bonuses;
Percentage of respondents indicating decisions were: Always or mostly
based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 61; Percentage of
respondents indicating decisions were: Sometimes or never or almost
never based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 21.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Promotion and career advancement;
Percentage of respondents indicating decisions were: Always or mostly
based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 44; Percentage of
respondents indicating decisions were: Sometimes or never or almost
never based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 21.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Nonmonetary awards and recognition;
Percentage of respondents indicating decisions were: Always or mostly
based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 50; Percentage of
respondents indicating decisions were: Sometimes or never or almost
never based on merit and free of bias and favoritism: 22.
Source: GAO's survey of Region X employees about EEO.
[End of table]
Table 27 shows, by sex and minority status, those respondents who
indicated that they believed such personnel or pay decisions were
sometimes or never or almost never based on merit and free of bias and
favoritism.
Table 27: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Decisions Were Sometimes
or Never Based on Merit and Free of Bias and Favoritism:
Type of personnel or pay decision: Job or project assignments; Men: 7;
Women: 11; Nonminority: 13; Minority: 6.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Training; Men: 5; Women: 8;
Nonminority: 8; Minority: 4.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Formal performance appraisals/
ratings; Men: 4; Women: 6; Nonminority: 7; Minority: 3.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Monetary awards and bonuses; Men: 8;
Women: 14; Nonminority: 15; Minority: 6.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Promotion and career advancement;
Men: 9; Women: 13; Nonminority: 16; Minority: 6.
Type of personnel or pay decision: Nonmonetary awards and recognition;
Men: 8; Women: 15; Nonminority: 17; Minority: 6.
Source: GAO's survey of Region X employees about EEO.
[End of table]
Narrative Comments:
The questionnaire offered respondents the option of providing
additional comments relating to any of the items discussed therein. Of
the 1,355 useable returned questionnaires (see app. I), 307
respondents, or 22.7 percent, provided narrative comments. In
descending order, these comments most frequently concerned:
* perceived inequities in merit hiring, promotions, and awards (30.3
percent);
* complaints of perceived discrimination or other negative personal
experiences (21.5 percent); or:
* disgruntlement over affirmative action and workforce diversity (9.4
percent).
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Survey of Region X Employees about EEO:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Social Secuity Administration:
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Commissioner
June 26, 2003:
Mr. Victor S. Rezendes:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Rezendes:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
"Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO): SSA Region X's Changes to Its EEO
Process Illustrate Need for Agencywide Procedures," (GAO-03-604). We
acknowledge the general findings and are committed to ensuring equal
treatment for all employees, and that our policies and practices are in
compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC)
procedures for processing complaints of discrimination.
Enclosed, please find our comments on the report contents and specific
recommendations. The report states that the data and analysis were not
designed to determine whether or not discrimination existed, but can
indicate areas warranting further study. I want to take this
opportunity to highlight the results of a comprehensive internal human
resources management (HRM) audit conducted in Region X in fiscal year
2002. It is significant because that review included a Merit System
Principles Questionnaire (MSPQ) that directly addressed fairness,
equity and other trust-related merit principles. We provided a copy of
the report to your staff on July 24, 2002, as an internal management
document with restricted distribution.
Based on the results of the 2002 HRM report, I believe our current EEO
process is fair and consistent with the spirit of EEOC's regulations
and guidance. To determine what can be done to further enhance the
process, we have begun a national dialogue among SSA's Regional
Commissioners to address diversity topics at the regional and national
levels. Finally, as we manage our human capital resources, we will
continue to support an atmosphere of communication and commitment to
equal employment opportunities for all employees.
If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Laura Bell at
(410) 965-2636.
Sincerely,
Jo Anne B. Barnhart:
Signed by Jo Anne B. Barnhart:
Enclosure:
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 13ALTIMORE MD 21235-0001:
COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) DRAFT REPORT "EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO): THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION'S
(SSA) REGION X CHANGES TO ITS EEO PROCESS ILLUSTRATE NEED FOR
AGENCYWIDE PROCEDURES" (GAO-03-604):
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report. I want to take this opportunity to state our commitment to
ensuring equal treatment for all employees and that our policies and
practices comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
(EEOC) procedures for processing complaints of discrimination.
As part of our ongoing efforts to monitor our human resources
activities, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2002, our Office of Human Resources
(OHR) conducted a comprehensive Human Resource Management (HRM) audit
of Region X. The audit included a Merit System Principles Questionnaire
(MSPQ) that directly addressed fairness, equity and other trust-related
merit principles. The results of the audit were that the Region
operates in a "principle-based" manner where managers are encouraged to
make decisions consistent with the Merit System Principles. Most
notable was the fact that the Region scored significantly higher in the
areas of Merit Principles and EEO than the Government average. In
addition, approximately 20 best practices were observed in the region
and recommended as models of effective HRM practices.
Some of the more notable conclusions provided in the 2002 HRM audit
report were:
The Human Resources (HR) and Equal Opportunity (EO) staffs are doing a
good job in terms of activities designed to enhance the effectiveness
of EO-related processes. These activities include training and
developmental programs, improved communications to line managers and
employees, targeted recruitment and ongoing monitoring and reporting.
The Seattle Region makes good use of its external hiring authorities.
We found no illegal appointments, and we found Seattle to comply with
all applicable regulatory requirements.
The Seattle Region conducts its merit promotion activities according to
Merit System Principles.
The Region is in compliance with EEO regulations.
Of additional significance are the results of the MSPQ's that were
administered prior to OHR's onsite visit to gather information on how
well Region X employees perceive the Agency is doing in ensuring that
HRM practices conform to the spirit and the letter of the nine Merit
Systems Principles that are applicable Government-wide. The validity of
these survey results are demonstrated by the fact that the MSPQ was
designed and
developed by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for use in its
oversight reviews. Subsequent adoption by SSA was through a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with OPM, which gave SSA the authority to
conduct its own internal reviews of HRM practices in lieu of OPM's
cyclical agency-wide reviews.
Merit System Principles that reflect fairness, integrity and trust
received "favorable" ratings on the MSPQ using OPM's "absolute
standards criterion." Some of the more notable results are highlighted
below:
"Recruit, select and advance on the basis of merit." (Percent Favorable
= 71.5):
"Treat employees and applicants fairly and equitably." (Percent
Favorable = 74.2):
"Maintain high standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the
public interest." (Percent Favorable = 82.2):
Comments from the focus group participants were also consistent with
the Region X's MSPQ results. Finally, the demographic analysis of the
responses indicated that proportionately more minorities were pleased
with their supervisors' role in managing poor performers and in helping
all employees to improve their job performance. The minority
respondents also expressed more favorable attitudes when queried about
the performance awards system and about their own opportunities to
participate in developing long-range plans in their work units.
In summary, we believe our current EEO process is fair and consistent
with the spirit of the EEO regulations and related guidance. In
addition, to further enhance our efforts in this area, we have begun a
national dialogue among the Regional Commissioners to address diversity
topics at the regional and national levels. As we manage our human
capital resources, we will continue to support an atmosphere of
communication and commitment to equal employment opportunities for all
employees.
Our response to the report conclusions and specific recommendations are
provided below. In addition, we are providing some technical comments
that should be considered in preparing the final report.
General Comment:
GAO found the change that Region X implemented in 1999 to the EEO
process was not in the spirit of the regulations and related guidance.
SSA Response:
The written communication process that was implemented in Region X in
1999 was discontinued as of October 2001. The process was used by EEO
Counselors on a temporary basis to address management concerns with the
existing EEO process.
Management officials had expressed concern that EEO counseling reports
did not accurately reflect their statements. In one case, an attempt
was made to impugn a manager's credibility at the hearing using a
counseling report. Management officials complained that the EEO
counselors acted as investigators, and they wanted representation at
the informal stage.
Additionally, the Director, Center for Human Resources was having
difficulty implementing some informal resolution agreements. Some
agreements contained ambiguous language, and others did not comply with
Federal law, Agency policy or the collective bargaining agreements. The
Office of the General Counsel (OGC) review ensured that informal
resolution agreements complied with applicable statutes, regulations,
policies and collective bargaining agreements.
An EEOC judge has held that it is appropriate for OGC attorneys to
provide advice and guidance to management officials during the EEO
process. In that case, OGC attorneys assisted a high level SSA
executive in answering interrogatories propounded by the EEO contract
investigator. Specifically, the judge stated, "The job and function of
the attorneys for the Government generally is to represent their
client, the Agency, and its management officials.":
Recommendation 1:
The Commissioner of SSA should direct the Regional Commissioner (RC) of
Region X to review the statistically significant differences we found
in adverse actions and awards to determine why they occurred and what,
if any, corrective action is needed.
SSA Response:
We will continue, as part of our ongoing efforts to ensure equity to
all employees, to monitor statistically significant differences in the
processing of personnel actions in various categories including adverse
actions and awards.
However, it should be noted that the GAO data shows that of 142 adverse
actions in a 5-year period, 65 (46 percent) were attributed to systems
security sanctions cases. We would like to emphasize that these cases
are identified largely from security reviews and that the proposing and
deciding officials for sanctions cases are required to follow a uniform
table of penalties that is applicable Agency-wide. Additionally, to
ensure consistency, the deciding official is the same person for all
cases in each region. These factors should be taken into consideration
when drawing any conclusions from the data.
Recommendation 2:
The Commissioner of SSA should adopt standard operating procedures for
EEO Counselors that include step-by-step procedures for processing
complaints of discrimination so that Counselors and others involved in
the process across the country know what to do and employees face the
same process everywhere.
SSA Response:
The Agency has standard operating procedures in place to ensure that
all employees, regardless of their geographical location, have the same
EEO process available to them.
An EEO Handbook for Managers and Supervisors and an EEO Handbook for
Employees were issued in FY 1996, shortly after SSA became an
independent agency. These handbooks identify the specific
responsibilities of the employees, the counselors and management to
ensure that all managers, supervisors and employees, SSA-wide, are
aware of the EEO process and their responsibilities. The handbooks are
currently being updated to include additional guidance that will ensure
that the informal counseling process is conducted within the spirit of
the EEOC regulations. The handbook will also include information on the
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process and will be re-issued to
all managers, supervisors and employees by the end of Calendar Year
2003. An EEO statement is also posted on all bulletin boards that
provide the procedures and timelines for requesting an informal inquiry
on EEO issues.
SSA also has a training manual that includes step-by-step procedures
for processing informal complaints of discrimination that is used by
the CREO Managers and headquarters staff to train EEO Counselors. The
manual is used for initial and refresher training and serves as the
Agency's standard operating procedures for EEO Counselors. The training
manual mirrors much of the same information contained in Appendix A of
EEO-MD 110. We plan to update this material with the procedural
guidelines as described in CFR 1614.104. We also developed and issued
two EEO Counseling Technical Advisory Letters in May of 2003. The
letters are designed to supplement the training manual and are used to
transmit guidance and EEO technical information to CREO Managers and
EEO Counselors to ensure consistency in our EEO counseling program
across the Agency.
Recommendation 3:
The Commissioner of SSA should direct the RC of Region X to establish a
plan to 1) enhance the Region's EEO environment to increase trust and
2) measure the plan's effectiveness, such as with a periodic survey of
employees.
SSA Response:
We agree that all regions should foster an environment where employees
feel they can raise concerns and take part in a process designed to
resolve complaints. GAO survey data actually show that more than half
(51 percent) of the employees are "very willing" (24 percent) or
"generally willing" (27 percent) to participate in the EEO counseling
phase in Region X. In addition, another 13 percent said that they are
"as willing as unwilling" to participate, with a final 10 percent that
were "uncertain." Since Region X is no longer following the change to
the EEOC process that may have caused some distrust, implementing a
plan and specific surveys will not be necessary. We will continue to
share best practices learned from our Human Resource audits with Region
X, and Region X will be a part of the ongoing national dialogue of
Regional Commissioners concerning diversity topics that we mentioned
above.
Technical Comments:
The separation statistics and language in paragraph 1 (page 15) refers
to higher separation rates for minorities. It is suggested that the
reference show "Region X hired a significant number of minorities in
the past few years. Based on the data and their experience that
separation rates are always higher in the first several years, the
higher percentage of separation rates for minorities can be expected.":
In paragraph 1 (page 27), GAO concluded that "a sizeable portion of
respondents to our survey - about 40 percent --indicated that they are
unwilling or uncertain about becoming involved with the processes
established for handling EEO complaints." Combining the "unwilling" and
"uncertain" responses implies "uncertain" as a negative vs. neutral
response. It is suggested that the two responses be reported
separately.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Victor S. Rezendes, (202) 512-6806:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Thomas G. Dowdal, Karin K.
Fangman, Nathan Morris, Terry Richardson, Kiki Theodoropoulos, Michael
R. Volpe, and Gregory H. Wilmoth made key contributions to this report.
(450090):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Seattle Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People, Racism and Disparate Treatment Issues: Region 10,
Social Security Administration (Seattle: 2000).
[2] Although the Region handles the informal stage of the EEO complaint
process, SSA requires formal complaints be filed with SSA headquarters
in Baltimore.
[3] 29 C.F.R. Part 1614.
[4] These data include temporary employees but do not include SSA
components in Region X that are not under the line authority of the
then Regional Commissioner (i.e., the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
OGC, the Office of Inspector General, and the Regional Office of
Quality Assurance).
[5] The presence of statistically significant differences means that we
are 95-percent confident that differences could happen by chance less
than 5 percent of the time.
[6] ADR generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the parties in a
dispute that is used to resolve issues in controversy including, but
not limited to, mediation or arbitration. As of January 1, 2000, all
federal agencies covered by 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 were required to
establish or make available an ADR program during the informal
(precomplaint counseling) and formal complaint stages of the EEO
process. According to a Region X official, as of March 7, 2003,
participation in the ADR process is currently limited to mediation and
available to Region X employees within the Seattle commuting area.
[7] Before the end of the 30-day period, the employee may agree in
writing with the agency to postpone the final interview and extend the
counseling period for up to an additional 60 days.
[8] ADR is to be completed within 90 days.
[9] The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey of about 50,000
households conducted by the Bureau of the Census and is the primary
source of current information on the labor force characteristics of the
U.S. population.
[10] We were unable to determine whether minorities and women were
significantly less likely to be hired or promoted because we had no
data on applicants by race/ethnicity and gender.
[11] Telephone service representatives provide information to inquirers
about eligibility and benefits paid under SSA programs.
[12] "Direct-in" refers to when a caller is first connected to the 1-
800-number, hears an option that allows the bypass of English prompts,
and allows the caller to go directly to Spanish prompts. According to a
Region X official, in fiscal year 2002, the number of Spanish calls
handled by Spanish bilingual employees in the teleservice center in
Auburn, Wash., reached a high of 362,200.
[13] Hispanics were promoted at slightly lower rates than their
representation in the workforce. Hispanic men represented 2.9 percent
of competitive promotions and 3.0 percent in the Region's workforce for
the 5-year period. Hispanic women represented 5.1 percent of
competitive promotions and 5.4 percent of the Region's workforce.
[14] Of the 142 actions, 8 were for performance, not conduct.
[15] EEOC uses MD-110 to supplement its EEO regulations (29 C.F.R. Part
1614) with additional guidance relating to the processing of
complaints.
[16] A Region X official said that in 1999 Region X management
instituted an intensive training plan to address subject matter needs
of EEO specialists and established the practice of reinforcing each EEO
counselor's role as a neutral third party. This new training in the
Region was put into place about the same time that EEOC began requiring
specific training for EEO counselors. According to EEOC's Director of
Federal Sector Programs, EEOC guidance did not have a specific training
requirement for EEO counselors until November 9, 1999, when the
regulations and guidance were revised. Under the revised guidance, EEOC
requires new EEO counselors to receive a minimum of 32 hours of EEO
counselor training before assuming counseling duties.
[17] The Auburn Teleservice Center is one of SSA's four largest such
centers with telephone service representatives.
[18] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: The Role of
Ombudsmen in Dispute Resolution GAO/GGD-01-466 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
13, 2001) and A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management GAO-02-
373SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2002).
[19] Social Security Administration, Equal Employment Opportunity
Handbook for Managers and Supervisors of the Social Security
Administration (Baltimore: Nov. 1995).
[20] 29 C.F.R. sec. 1614.105(a).
[21] SSA's then Associate Commissioner of OCREO said that he prefaced
all of his remarks about the EEO process in Region X with the fact that
his office did not find or see anything illegal or that any person had
been discriminated against.
[22] 29 C.F.R. sec. 1614.102(b)(6).
[23] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Onsite Report: U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2003).
[24] According to SSA officials, SSA is currently revising its EEO
handbook for managers and supervisors as well as its employees'
edition.
[25] 29 C.F.R. sec. 1614.102 (a).
[26] 29 C.F.R. sec. 1614.102 (b) (5).
[27] 29 C.F.R. sec. 1614.104 (a).
[28] Region X provided data on the following EEO groups: African
American men and women, American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) men and
women, Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian) men and women, Hispanic men and
women, and White men and women.
[29] According to the Region X official, such coding was done with the
knowledge and confidence that the code would be corrected when the new
employee paperwork was received, usually within the following week,
providing accurate race/ethnicity data based on the new employee's
self-identification for the system.
[30] 29 C.F.R. Part 1614.
[31] 42 U.S.C. secs. 2000e et seq.
[32] 29 U.S.C. sec. 206(b).
[33] 29 U.S.C. secs. 621 et seq.
[34] 29 U.S.C. secs. 791 and 794a.
[35] For allegations of discrimination under Title VII and the
Rehabilitation Act, filing an administrative complaint is a
prerequisite to filing a civil action in court. See 42 U.S.C. sec.
2000e-16(c) and 29 U.S.C. sec. 794a(a)(1).
[36] 29 C.F.R. Part 1614. EEOC has supplemented these regulations with
additional guidance relating to the processing of complaints with
Management Directive-110 (MD-110), issued November 9, 1999.
[37] ADR generally refers to any procedure agreed to by the parties in
a dispute that is used to resolve issues in controversy including, but
not limited to, conciliation, facilitation, or mediation. As of January
1, 2000, all federal agencies covered by 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 were
required to establish or make available an ADR program during the
informal (precomplaint counseling) and formal complaint stages of the
EEO processes. According to an SSA Region X official, as of March 7,
2003, participation in the ADR process is currently limited to
mediation and is available to Region X employees within the Seattle
commuting area.
[38] Before the end of the 30-day period, the employee may agree in
writing with the agency to extend the counseling period for up to an
additional 60 days.
[39] ADR is to be completed within 90 days.
[40] An agency may dismiss an individual's complaint for a number of
reasons, including failure to contact an EEO counselor in a timely
manner, failure to file a complaint in a timely manner, or failure to
state a claim based on covered discrimination.
[41] This period can be extended an additional 90 days when both
parties agree.
[42] A complainant may request a hearing at any time after 180 days
have elapsed from the filing of the complaint, regardless of whether
the agency has completed its investigation.
[43] If the agency does not issue a final order within 40 days, the
decision of the AJ becomes the final action of the agency.
[44] MSPB is an independent quasi-judicial agency in the executive
branch that serves as the guardian of federal merit systems.
[45] For employees of agencies subject to 5 U.S.C. sec. 7121(d) and
covered by a collective bargaining agreement that permits claims of
discrimination to be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure, the
employees similarly must elect to file an EEO complaint or a grievance.
[46] The then Regional Commissioner, a White man, was the only SES
manager in Region X in fiscal year 1997 and most of fiscal year 1998.
In fiscal years 1999 through 2001, there were two SES managers in the
Region, the then Regional Commissioner, an Hispanic woman, and the then
Deputy Commissioner, an African American man.
[47] Social Security Administration, Human Resources Management
Assessment Report for Review Conducted April 29-May 3, 2002 in Region
X, Office of Human Resources (Baltimore: 2002).
[48] If a temporary promotion that was not expected to exceed 120 days
was originally made on a noncompetitive basis, any extension beyond 120
days must be made under a competitive procedure. Temporary promotions
can be made for either bargaining or nonbargaining unit positions.
[49] For the 5-year period on which we focused, Region X gave group
special act awards only in fiscal year 2001.
[50] Because more monetary awards are given than there are people in an
EEO group in the Region (i.e., some individuals get more than one
monetary award), we could not test for statistical significance of
monetary awards.
[51] Eight actions were for performance, not conduct.
[52] Because numbers of adverse actions were small in each of the 5
years, we combined all actions for the 5-year period.
[53] The Region stated that any of these steps may be bypassed if
management determines by the severe nature of the behavior that a
lesser form of discipline would not be appropriate.
[54] Other offenses each accounted for less than 10 percent of all
actions and included failure to adhere to leave rules or being away
without leave and failure to follow standards of conduct.
[55] MSPB's mission is to ensure that federal employees are protected
against abuses by executive branch agency management, that agencies
make employment decisions according to merit systems principles, and
that federal merit systems are kept free from prohibited personnel
practices.
[56] SSA changed its national reporting mechanism from manual to
electronic reporting, and beginning in fiscal year 2000, SSA initiated
a national database for tracking EEO counseling activity.
[57] The accommodation must be job related and not items already
required for personal use (e.g., hearing aids, prosthetic devices,
wheelchairs, and transportation to work). Reasonable accommodation is
determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the
individual's specific disability and existing limitations to the
performance of a job function, the essential duties of the job, the
work environment, and the feasibility of the proposed accommodation.
[58] Such grievances are filed in accordance with Article 24, Section 9
of the SSA/AFGE National Agreement. In addition, the union as an
institution may file grievances against a particular level of
management in accordance with Article 24, Section 10 of the SSA/AFGE
National Agreement; such grievances are not discussed in this report.
[59] Occasionally, management may offer something other than what was
requested, which satisfies the employee/representative, and the
grievance is resolved.
[60] The terms of the five nonmonetary settlements agreed to for
complaints filed in fiscal years 1997 through 2001 included rescinded
terminations, removals, or suspensions; restoration or credit for sick
and annual leave; lateral reassignment or promotion; and a handwritten
apology.
[61] For EEO complaints alone, 32 complaints filed in fiscal years 1997
through 2001 were settled (as shown in table 18).
[62] The percentage of respondents by race/ethnicity closely mirrored
the percentage of each race/ethnicity in the population of Region X
employees. The percentage of men and women responding to the survey
also matched their respective percentages in the Region X workforce.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
